Hugh Hefner is now in hell

[Tassman]

He is where you will also be sooner or later.

He is where we will ALL be "sooner or later", namely dead and buried.

[stfoskey15]

Um... what? I never said one word about reincarnation, or whatever you want to call it.

Right. I'm saying your views and LPOT's views seem to be in conflict. Which may be fine, but unless LPOT responds to my accusation that Hitler going to heaven is similar to the reincarnation idea she was criticizing, we will never know.

[Roy]

"But... but... you could be wrong!"

Seriously? That's your counter argument?

Feel free to make the case that there are other gods on equal footing with Yahweh.

Rondo, Kronos, Yahweh, Ptah, Zeus, Vishnu, Wotan, Quetzalcoatl and all the myriad other gods are on equal footing in that there is no evidence for the existence of any of them, and none of their supporters have produced any sound and valid arguments for their existence other than the trivial 'something must have initiated the universe' which can be equally misapplied to any and all deities imaginable.

Most theists are aware of this to some extent, which is why they so often attempt to shift the burden of proof for their fantasy onto those who reject it.

[Roy]

Here's an easy one: someone walks into a crowd and starts shooting. Would you be OK with someone else using deadly force to stop him? Most rational people would say yes.

Yeah, that's an easy one. But even that easy one contradicts your immediately preceding claim that "Life is the exclusive gift of God. None of us have the right to take it." It's no surprise you won't address the more difficult ones.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, that's an easy one. But even that easy one contradicts your immediately preceding claim that "Life is the exclusive gift of God. None of us have the right to take it." It's no surprise you won't address the more difficult ones.

Not a contradiction at all if you understand that there is such a thing as justified killing, such as in punishment for crimes, or to protect the lives of others. It's interesting that Jesus never condemned a soldier for being a soldier. On the contrary, a centurion of the Roman army was held up as one of the greatest examples of faith in the New Testament.

To put it another way, we don't have the right to take life, but we do have an obligation to follow God's commands

[Mountain Man]

Rondo, Kronos, Yahweh, Ptah, Zeus, Vishnu, Wotan, Quetzalcoatl and all the myriad other gods are on equal footing in that there is no evidence for the existence of any of them, and none of their supporters have produced any sound and valid arguments for their existence other than the trivial 'something must have initiated the universe' which can be equally misapplied to any and all deities imaginable.

Most theists are aware of this to some extent, which is why they so often attempt to shift the burden of proof for their fantasy onto those who reject it.

You know, I see skeptics make statements like this quite frequently, but I read it as "I'm ignorant and don't actually know the arguments and evidence in favor of theism and Christianity, but I'm going try to save face by lumping all religions together even though this makes me look like an idiot."

Can you tell me what the best philosophical arguments are in favor of theism and how those arguments apply -- or don't apply -- to the gods you listed?

What about the best historical arguments?

Theological arguments?

Got nothing? That's what I thought.

I suppose you might want a more comprehensive response, but seriously, man, where do you start when someone basically says, "I don't know anything about the topic in question, but I'm going to debate it anyway"? Maybe you could start us off with some specific questions or something.

[Darth Executor]

He is where we will ALL be "sooner or later", namely dead and buried.

Your head is already dead and buried, just waiting for the rest of your body to catch up.

[Darth Executor]

God knows, no one else does. If it should be that I do go to hell, I'll be sure to look you up.

If I end up going to hell I will own the place in no time at which point you definitely won't want to be looking me up.

[Sparko]

Matthew 3:18
Then he said, "I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven.

[Roy]

You know, I see skeptics make statements like this quite frequently, but I read it as "I'm ignorant and don't actually know the arguments and evidence in favor of theism and Christianity, but I'm going try to save face by lumping all religions together even though this makes me look like an idiot."

Can you tell me what the best philosophical arguments are in favor of theism and how those arguments apply -- or don't apply -- to the gods you listed?

What about the best historical arguments?

Theological arguments?

Got nothing? That's what I thought.

If you can't be bothered to even wait for my reply before deciding that I've "Got nothing" then there's not much point in talking to you. I will point out that (as expected) you didn't bother to produce or refer to any actual evidence or arguments.

I suppose you might want a more comprehensive response, but seriously, man, where do you start when someone basically says, "I don't know anything about the topic in question, but I'm going to debate it anyway"?

The problem with this is that I actually do know something about the topic in question, having spent a lot of time reading and analysing the various claimed arguments and 'proofs' for 'God' and based on that and on your history of gaffes and misstatements (such as your pathetic performance here) I'm 99% certain that I know a lot more than you do.

For the record, I consider the Thomistic first cause/first mover arguments to be the best philosophical arguments for a god, but they fail for Yahweh because (i) they don't support unity and (ii) they're not specific to a single religion. The best historical arguments seem to be those based on the initial take-up of Xtianity, but they are flawed in that other religions have had equally fast growth. The arguments from prophecy and unexpected knowledge may be the best theological ones, but don't work particularly well since they rely on self-fulfilment, post-dated authorship and vagueness, and anyway the Mormons took prophesying to an art form.

Maybe you could start us off with some specific questions or something.

How about you say what you think are the best philosophical argument, the best historical argument and the best theological argument for Yahweh, and see if you can do better than just linking to some-one else's version that you haven't read and don't really comprehend.

Alternatively, you could post some silly icons and baseless assertions and prove my point even more than you have already.

[Mountain Man]

If you can't be bothered to even wait for my reply before deciding that I've "Got nothing" then there's not much point in talking to you.

Look, kiddo, you're the one who claimed "there is no evidence for the existence of [a god or gods], and none of their supporters have produced any sound and valid arguments for their existence", so what else could I do but assume your ignorance? It seems what you meant to say is that you are familiar with some arguments but that you reject them, which is a different claim entirely. If that's what you meant but didn't actually say then that's on you.

...such as your pathetic performance here...

So your example of my "pathetic performance" is to link to a thread where I delivered a quick knockout blow to my opponent's central premise from which he never recovered?

Sure, man, whatever you say.

For the record, I consider the Thomistic first cause/first mover arguments to be the best philosophical arguments for a god, but they fail for Yahweh because (i) they don't support unity and (ii) they're not specific to a single religion.

Of course it's not specific to a single religion because all that's being argued for here is the truth of theism and not any specific religion. What a stupid objection. For other arguments, see Dr. William Lane Craig's "The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God" (he covers Thomnism under the heading "The Cosmological Argument from Contingency"). Based on the many excellent philosophical arguments, I take it as a given that theism is true, or at least it's more probable that it's true than it is that it's false. Furthermore, if it's the case that theism is true then it is probable that Christianity is true.

The best historical arguments seem to be those based on the initial take-up of Xtianity, but they are flawed in that other religions have had equally fast growth. The arguments from prophecy and unexpected knowledge may be the best theological ones, but don't work particularly well since they rely on self-fulfilment, post-dated authorship and vagueness, and anyway the Mormons took prophesying to an art form.

Actually, the sociological argument for Christianity is that it thrived under circumstances in which it would have certainly failed to take hold if it were false, so you didn't even get that one right. That's the central premise of JP Holding's "The Impossible Faith". It's notable that other religions like Islam and Mormonism fail this test because unlike Christianity, there's nothing in their success that depended on their central claims actually being true.

The best historical argument, I think, is Dr. Gary Habermas' "Minimal Facts" thesis in which he argues for the Resurrection using only those facts that are readily conceded by even the most skeptical of scholars. Dr. Habermas identified over a dozen facts, but the "bedrock" facts considered the most essential to the argument are:

1) Jesus died by crucifixion
2) The tomb was found empty
3) The disciples sincerely believed they saw Jesus resurrected in the flesh
4) Hostile witnesses -- Saul of Tarsus, and James the brother of Jesus -- went from skepticism to belief

The strength of this argument lies in, first of all, scholarly consensus, and secondly, the fact that while a skeptic might be able to dismiss each line of evidence individually, he will find it impossible to dismiss all of them with a single explanation.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles...mpcrit_pt1.htm
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles...mpcrit_pt2.htm
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles...08-02-2012.htm

In broader terms, the historical case for Biblical theism lies in the fact that on every historical point on which the Bible can and has been tested, it has passed with flying colors.

Now you can dismiss these arguments and evidence, but to say they don't exist? Dude, that's nothing but pigheaded ignorance.

[Roy]

Look, kiddo, you're the one who claimed "there is no evidence for the existence of [a god or gods], and none of their supporters have produced any sound and valid arguments for their existence", so what else could I do but assume your ignorance?

You could have provided evidence and/or arguments. You chose not to.

So your example of my "pathetic performance" is to link to a thread where I delivered a quick knockout blow to my opponent's central premise from which he never recovered?

Of course it's not specific to a single religion because all that's being argued for here is the truth of theism and not any specific religion. What a stupid objection.

You were the one that suggested philosophical arguments in favour of theism as being relevant to Yahweh, not me.

For other arguments, see Dr. William Lane Craig's "The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God" (he covers Thomnism under the heading "The Cosmological Argument from Contingency"). Based on the many excellent philosophical arguments, I take it as a given that theism is true, or at least it's more probable that it's true than it is that it's false. Furthermore, if it's the case that theism is true then it is probable that Christianity is true.

No, that isn't the case. Even if Craig's arguments were unflawed,* there is no reason to conclude Christianity is probably true based on just the existence of some prime being. In particular there are aspects of many versions of Xtianity that are demonstrably false, e.g. young earth or transsubstantiation.

The best historical arguments seem to be those based on the initial take-up of Xtianity, but they are flawed in that other religions have had equally fast growth. The arguments from prophecy and unexpected knowledge may be the best theological ones, but don't work particularly well since they rely on self-fulfilment, post-dated authorship and vagueness, and anyway the Mormons took prophesying to an art form.

Actually, the sociological argument for Christianity is that it thrived under circumstances in which it would have certainly failed to take hold if it were false, so you didn't even get that one right.

You didn't ask about sociological arguments, you asked about philosophical, historical and theological ones.

That's the central premise of JP Holding's "The Impossible Faith". It's notable that other religions like Islam and Mormonism fail this test because unlike Christianity, there's nothing in their success that depended on their central claims actually being true.

There's nothing in Xtianity's success that requires that either. Holdings essay looks like a combination of argument from incredulity (I can't see how this could happen if Xtianity was false, therefore Xtianity was true), and argument from the assumption that the originators of Xtianity weren't capable of reverse psychology. Unless there's some specific you want to discuss, this seems to be your predicted 'linking to some-one else's version that you haven't read and don't really comprehend'

The best historical argument, I think, is Dr. Gary Habermas' "Minimal Facts" thesis in which he argues for the Resurrection using only those facts that are readily conceded by even the most skeptical of scholars. Dr. Habermas identified over a dozen facts, but the "bedrock" facts considered the most essential to the argument are:

1) Jesus died by crucifixion
2) The tomb was found empty
3) The disciples sincerely believed they saw Jesus resurrected in the flesh
4) Hostile witnesses -- Saul of Tarsus, and James the brother of Jesus -- went from skepticism to belief

The strength of this argument

What argument? You've given the underlying facts, but not the argument.

... lies in, first of all, scholarly consensus,

Since you frequently deny that scholarly consensus means anything w.r.t. climate science, your use of it in apologetics is hypocritical.

and secondly, the fact that while a skeptic might be able to dismiss each line of evidence individually, he will find it impossible to dismiss all of them with a single explanation.

So what? Why should a single explanation be used to reject multiple lines of 'evidence'?

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles...mpcrit_pt1.htm
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles...mpcrit_pt2.htm
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles...08-02-2012.htm

Since you're once again probably 'linking to some-one else's version that you haven't read and don't really comprehend' I'll merely state that the core of Habermas' argument is that something must have changed the disciples and (supposedly) hostiles from despondent mourners and skeptics into triumphant believers and preachers, but since such conversions frequently happen without the need for any miraculous resurrections, especially among those disaffected by society - witness the number of westerners radicalised into Islamic jihadists - this is only evidence for human frailty, and not a god. It wouldn't even be evidence for Yahweh specifically even if it was evidence for a god, unless you can somehow show that no other deity could have performed a resurrection.

In broader terms, the historical case for Biblical theism lies in the fact that on every historical point on which the Bible can and has been tested, it has passed with flying colors.

Pigswill. The supposed Roman census, the exodus, the Babel languages and the flood are trivial counter-examples. It takes no effort at all to find others, such as discrepancies in dating the battle of Jericho, or anachronisms in Samuel. That you even advance this as an argument shreds your credibility.

Now you can dismiss these arguments and evidence, but to say they don't exist? Dude, that's nothing but pigheaded ignorance.

I said there was no evidence, and no sound and valid arguments.

You have provided no evidence, and all the arguments you mention link to are flawed, most of them trivially so. The only pigheaded ignorance is your own ignorance of the flaws and counter-examples of your supposed arguments.


*They aren't.
Premise 1.2 is unjustified.
Premise 2.1 is dependent on the conclusion (and is justified only by appearances and by knowledge of current conditions on Earth, not the early universe), so the argument is circular.
Premise 3.2 is demonstrably false because those that claim objective moral values exist disagree on what those values are, making them subjective.
Premise 4.2 doesn't take into account anthropicism.
Premise 5.3 appears to be false. Craig just assumes it without support or argument.

[Mountain Man]

You could have provided evidence and/or arguments. You chose not to. You were the one that suggested philosophical arguments in favour of theism as being relevant to Yahweh, not me.No, that isn't the case. Even if Craig's arguments were unflawed,* there is no reason to conclude Christianity is probably true based on just the existence of some prime being. In particular there are aspects of many versions of Xtianity that are demonstrably false, e.g. young earth or transsubstantiation.
You didn't ask about sociological arguments, you asked about philosophical, historical and theological ones. There's nothing in Xtianity's success that requires that either. Holdings essay looks like a combination of argument from incredulity (I can't see how this could happen if Xtianity was false, therefore Xtianity was true), and argument from the assumption that the originators of Xtianity weren't capable of reverse psychology. Unless there's some specific you want to discuss, this seems to be your predicted 'linking to some-one else's version that you haven't read and don't really comprehend'

What argument? You've given the underlying facts, but not the argument. Since you frequently deny that scholarly consensus means anything w.r.t. climate science, your use of it in apologetics is hypocritical. So what? Why should a single explanation be used to reject multiple lines of 'evidence'?

Since you're once again probably 'linking to some-one else's version that you haven't read and don't really comprehend' I'll merely state that the core of Habermas' argument is that something must have changed the disciples and (supposedly) hostiles from despondent mourners and skeptics into triumphant believers and preachers, but since such conversions frequently happen without the need for any miraculous resurrections, especially among those disaffected by society - witness the number of westerners radicalised into Islamic jihadists - this is only evidence for human frailty, and not a god. It wouldn't even be evidence for Yahweh specifically even if it was evidence for a god, unless you can somehow show that no other deity could have performed a resurrection.

Pigswill. The supposed Roman census, the exodus, the Babel languages and the flood are trivial counter-examples. It takes no effort at all to find others, such as discrepancies in dating the battle of Jericho, or anachronisms in Samuel. That you even advance this as an argument shreds your credibility.

I said there was no evidence, and no sound and valid arguments.

You have provided no evidence, and all the arguments you mention link to are flawed, most of them trivially so. The only pigheaded ignorance is your own ignorance of the flaws and counter-examples of your supposed arguments.


*They aren't.
Premise 1.2 is unjustified.
Premise 2.1 is dependent on the conclusion (and is justified only by appearances and by knowledge of current conditions on Earth, not the early universe), so the argument is circular.
Premise 3.2 is demonstrably false because those that claim objective moral values exist disagree on what those values are, making them subjective.
Premise 4.2 doesn't take into account anthropicism.
Premise 5.3 appears to be false. Craig just assumes it without support or argument.

First, a sociological argument is essentially a historical argument. And, no, "The Impossible Faith" is not an argument from incredulity. Did you even bother to read the essay? It's based on a number of historical facts about the ancient world, and any one of the 17 factors discussed by Holding would have been enough to stop the spread of Christianity dead in its tracks unless there was vindicating proof to overcome the extreme social resistance. The fact that Christianity was able to overcome every sociological obstacle means that there was very strong evidence in its favor that was able to defeat social norms and expectations that had been ingrained in the fabric of society for millennia. Actually, the argument is stronger than that: If the resurrection wasn't true then how can you explain Christianity's success in light of the considerable obstacles? I'll go ahead and assume your suggestion that the apostles used "reverse psychology" was intended as a joke only because it's such a laughably ignorant premise.

Why is it critical for skeptics to come up with a single explanation that can account for all the facts? Because dealing with points individually often leads to contradictions. For instance, you can claim that Jesus was never really crucified, or that he didn't exist. Well, that doesn't explain why the disciples sincerely believed in the resurrected Messiah, or why hostile witnesses, one of whom actively persecuted Christians, would become passionate defenders of the faith. If you say that the disciples were subject to mass delusion, it doesn't explain why the tomb was found empty or, again, why hostile witnesses would join their cause. Maybe the disciples stole the body. OK... then why did they go all-in and face persecution and death for what they knew was a lie? What was in it for them? On the flipside, that Jesus really rose from the dead fully accounts for all the facts.

Regarding your attempted refutation of Craig, I can only assume, again, that you didn't read the essay. You say that the premise "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God" is unjustified even though Craig spent several paragraphs justifying it!

Source: The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God

Although premise 2 might appear at first to be controversial, what’s really awkward for the atheist is that premise 2 is logically equivalent to the typical atheist response to the contingency argument. (Two statements are logically equivalent if it’s impossible for one to be true and the other one false. They stand or fall together.) So what does the atheist almost always say in response to the contingency argument? He typically asserts the following:

A. If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.

Since, on atheism, the universe is the ultimate reality, it just exists as a brute fact. But that is logically equivalent to saying this:

B. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.

So you can’t affirm (A) and deny (B). But (B) is virtually synonymous with premise 2! (Just compare them.) So by saying that, given atheism, the universe has no explanation, the atheist is implicitly admitting premise 2: if the universe does have an explanation, then God exists.

Besides that, premise 2 is very plausible in its own right. For think of what the universe is: all of space-time reality, including all matter and energy. It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a non-physical, immaterial being beyond space and time. Now there are only two sorts of things that could fit that description: either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number seven, for example, can’t cause any effects. So if there is a cause of the universe, it must be a transcendent, unembodied Mind, which is what Christians understand God to be.

© Copyright Original Source

Note that Craig's argument is not about what caused the universe as we know it to exist but why does the universe exist at all as opposed to not existing. To this the atheist can only respond, "There is no explanation; it just exists."

Calling premise 2.1 ("Everything that begins to exist has a cause") circular reasoning forces me to assume you don't understand it. For one thing, the suggestion that something could pop into existence uncaused contradicts everything we know from science. Saying that the nature of reality could have been different in "the early universe" is nothing more than a begged question. Until you have hard evidence to that end, we have to conclude that the premise is true. As Craig explains:

Source: The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God

Premise 1 seems obviously true—at the least, more so than its negation. First, it’s rooted in the necessary truth that something cannot come into being uncaused from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is literally worse than magic. Second, if things really could come into being uncaused out of nothing, then it’s inexplicable why just anything and everything do not come into existence uncaused from nothing. Third, premise 1 is constantly confirmed in our experience as we see things that begin to exist being brought about by prior causes.

© Copyright Original Source

And on it goes. Your weak rebuttals do nothing to undermine the strength of Craig's arguments. As always, I encourage others to go to the source and read it for themselves.

Concerning other historical proofs, you rattle off a laundry list of items ("The supposed Roman census, the exodus, the Babel languages and the flood are trivial counter-examples. It takes no effort at all to find others, such as discrepancies in dating the battle of Jericho, or anachronisms in Samuel.") but don't advance any actual argument and sneakily imply that there is no answer to whatever argument these are intended to represent.

For instance, you mention anachronisms in Samuel:

Source: Tektonics

MacAlister also notes [88] that a passage in the OT refers to a Philistine "king" (1 Samuel 27:2) although the Philistines actually had a set of military lords rather than kings (other than perhaps Abimelech in Genesis 21, 26).

MacAlister doesn't think this is an anachronistic error, but rather, the OT writers "are obviously merely offering a Hebrew word or periphrasis as a translation of the native Philistine title." And he adds: "The same is true of analogous expressions in the Assyrian tablets." This sort of thing was normal praxis for the ancients.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/anachronisms.php

© Copyright Original Source

Is that what you were referring to?

The Roman consensus mentioned in Luke has a number of strong arguments in its favor -- for instance, this comprehensive study by Glenn Miller.

You seem to be under the impression that simply stating that an objection exists is enough to serve as an argument.

[Roy]

First, a sociological argument is essentially a historical argument.

Rubbish. Sociological arguments can refer to any society, not just historical ones.

And, no, "The Impossible Faith" is not an argument from incredulity. Did you even bother to read the essay? It's based on a number of historical facts about the ancient world, and any one of the 17 factors discussed by Holding would have been enough to stop the spread of Christianity dead in its tracks unless there was vindicating proof to overcome the extreme social resistance.

Fine. Let's look at factor #11. If Christianity wanted to succeed, it should never have admitted that women were the first to discover the empty tomb or the first to see the Risen Jesus.
There's so many unwarranted assumptions in there that you could lose count:
1) The only alternative to the resurrection being real is that the gospel writers were deliberately making up stories that they wanted to succeed
2) Men also went to tombs to anoint bodies, so not having the women there first wouldn't be incongruous
3) The subsequent inspection of the risen Jesus and the tomb by men would be ignored
4) The first gospel not mentioning a risen Jesus can be ignored
5) Mark didn't think of deliberately using female witnesses to make it look less like something invented
6) The gospel accounts are accurate
etc

Actually, the argument is stronger than that: If the resurrection wasn't true then how can you explain Christianity's success in light of the considerable obstacles?

That's not an argument, it's a question that avoids the burden of proof.

Why is it critical for skeptics to come up with a single explanation that can account for all the facts? Because dealing with points individually often leads to contradictions.

But it doesn't always lead to contradictions, and it definitely does not have to lead to contradictions, especially if the points are as unrelated as yours were.

For instance, you can claim that Jesus was never really crucified, or that he didn't exist. ... If you say that the disciples were subject to mass delusion, ... Maybe the disciples stole the body.

If I ever make those claims, you can criticise them. Until then you're just beating up strawmen, and your tally of evidence and valid/sound arguments remains zero.

Regarding your attempted refutation of Craig, I can only assume, again, that you didn't read the essay. You say that the premise "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God" is unjustified even though Craig spent several paragraphs justifying it!

I did read that section, and have previously, and it's clear that either you haven't read it, didn't understand it, and/or are incompetent at logic, otherwise you'd know that what you cite as a justification is Craig addressing a straw-man argument, treating a plausibility as a certainty and using an unwarranted and unsupported multi-step extrapolation from outside-the-universe->non-physical->sentient->Yahweh.

Note that Craig's argument is not about what caused the universe as we know it to exist but why does the universe exist at all as opposed to not existing.

Apparently you didn't read your own cite since Craig explicitly mentions "a cause of its existence" instead of a reason for its existence.

To this the atheist can only respond, "There is no explanation; it just exists."

Or "There's probably an explanation, but I don't know what it is". Another straw-man.

Calling premise 2.1 ("Everything that begins to exist has a cause") circular reasoning forces me to assume you don't understand it.

I didn't call premise 2.1 circular, I called the argument circular - and nothing is forcing you to assume anything; you could ask instead.

Saying that the nature of reality could have been different in "the early universe" is nothing more than a begged question. Until you have hard evidence to that end, we have to conclude that the premise is true.

Utter rubbish. Until we have hard evidence to that end we can only conclude that the premise is unknown.

And on it goes. Your weak rebuttals do nothing to undermine the strength of Craig's arguments.

You have repeatedly shown that you neither understand my rebuttals nor indeed logic itself. Your preceding claim that something must be concluded true until proven false is a prime example.

Concerning other historical proofs, you rattle off a laundry list of items ("The supposed Roman census, the exodus, the Babel languages and the flood are trivial counter-examples. It takes no effort at all to find others, such as discrepancies in dating the battle of Jericho, or anachronisms in Samuel.") but don't advance any actual argument and sneakily imply that there is no answer to whatever argument these are intended to represent.

It's simple. You claimed that "In broader terms, the historical case for Biblical theism lies in the fact that on every historical point on which the Bible can and has been tested, it has passed with flying colors." That's not a fact. The Bible has not passed with flying colours on the historical point of the census referred to by Luke, since it appears to place a census that took place in 6AD during the reign of some-one who died in 4BC. Since you are aware of the problem, you're being dishonest by ignoring it. Your ability to link to an unfinished discussion that doesn't get as far as addressing the Quirinius timeline doesn't help you case.

Have you read it?

For instance, you mention anachronisms in Samuel:

Source: Tektonics

MacAlister also notes [88] that a passage in the OT refers to a Philistine "king" (1 Samuel 27:2) although the Philistines actually had a set of military lords rather than kings (other than perhaps Abimelech in Genesis 21, 26).

MacAlister doesn't think this is an anachronistic error, but rather, the OT writers "are obviously merely offering a Hebrew word or periphrasis as a translation of the native Philistine title." And he adds: "The same is true of analogous expressions in the Assyrian tablets." This sort of thing was normal praxis for the ancients.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/anachronisms.php

© Copyright Original Source

Is that what you were referring to?

No, but it doesn't matter since the one example of the census in Luke is enough to refute you.

You seem to be under the impression that simply stating that an objection exists is enough to serve as an argument.

One last straw-man to burn.

Final point:
When you stated that "Until you have hard evidence to that end, we have to conclude that the premise is true" you not only proudly announced your incompetence to evaluate logical arguments, you also accidentally proved everything you ever wrote and ever will write is wrong:

Premise 1: There is a squirrel in my garden.
Premise 2: There is not a squirrel in my garden.
Since I currently have no hard evidence against either of these premises, your approach leads to
Conclusion 1: Premise 1 is true
Conclusion 2: Premise 2 is true
Conclusion 3: There is a squirrel in my garden and there is not a squirrel in my garden.
and from the logical principle that for any (P,Q) P&~P->Q
Conclusion 4: Everything Mountain Man has ever written and ever will write is wrong.

You won't understand the above, but that doesn't matter, and anyway any reply you make to this or any other point in this post has already been proven wrong unless you withdraw your defence of Craig's premise.

[Mountain Man]

Rubbish. Sociological arguments can refer to any society, not just historical ones. Fine. Let's look at factor #11. If Christianity wanted to succeed, it should never have admitted that women were the first to discover the empty tomb or the first to see the Risen Jesus.
There's so many unwarranted assumptions in there that you could lose count:
1) The only alternative to the resurrection being real is that the gospel writers were deliberately making up stories that they wanted to succeed
2) Men also went to tombs to anoint bodies, so not having the women there first wouldn't be incongruous
3) The subsequent inspection of the risen Jesus and the tomb by men would be ignored
4) The first gospel not mentioning a risen Jesus can be ignored
5) Mark didn't think of deliberately using female witnesses to make it look less like something invented
6) The gospel accounts are accurate
etc

That's not an argument, it's a question that avoids the burden of proof. But it doesn't always lead to contradictions, and it definitely does not have to lead to contradictions, especially if the points are as unrelated as yours were. If I ever make those claims, you can criticise them. Until then you're just beating up strawmen, and your tally of evidence and valid/sound arguments remains zero.

I did read that section, and have previously, and it's clear that either you haven't read it, didn't understand it, and/or are incompetent at logic, otherwise you'd know that what you cite as a justification is Craig addressing a straw-man argument, treating a plausibility as a certainty and using an unwarranted and unsupported multi-step extrapolation from outside-the-universe->non-physical->sentient->Yahweh. Apparently you didn't read your own cite since Craig explicitly mentions "a cause of its existence" instead of a reason for its existence. Or "There's probably an explanation, but I don't know what it is". Another straw-man.

I didn't call premise 2.1 circular, I called the argument circular - and nothing is forcing you to assume anything; you could ask instead. Utter rubbish. Until we have hard evidence to that end we can only conclude that the premise is unknown. You have repeatedly shown that you neither understand my rebuttals nor indeed logic itself. Your preceding claim that something must be concluded true until proven false is a prime example.It's simple. You claimed that "In broader terms, the historical case for Biblical theism lies in the fact that on every historical point on which the Bible can and has been tested, it has passed with flying colors." That's not a fact. The Bible has not passed with flying colours on the historical point of the census referred to by Luke, since it appears to place a census that took place in 6AD during the reign of some-one who died in 4BC. Since you are aware of the problem, you're being dishonest by ignoring it. Your ability to link to an unfinished discussion that doesn't get as far as addressing the Quirinius timeline doesn't help you case.

Have you read it?

No, but it doesn't matter since the one example of the census in Luke is enough to refute you. One last straw-man to burn.

Final point:
When you stated that "Until you have hard evidence to that end, we have to conclude that the premise is true" you not only proudly announced your incompetence to evaluate logical arguments, you also accidentally proved everything you ever wrote and ever will write is wrong:

Premise 1: There is a squirrel in my garden.
Premise 2: There is not a squirrel in my garden.
Since I currently have no hard evidence against either of these premises, your approach leads to
Conclusion 1: Premise 1 is true
Conclusion 2: Premise 2 is true
Conclusion 3: There is a squirrel in my garden and there is not a squirrel in my garden.
and from the logical principle that for any (P,Q) P&~P->Q
Conclusion 4: Everything Mountain Man has ever written and ever will write is wrong.

You won't understand the above, but that doesn't matter, and anyway any reply you make to this or any other point in this post has already been proven wrong unless you withdraw your defence of Craig's premise.

When you said, "One last straw-man to burn," I can only assume you were referring to the strawman that was to follow, because your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum is nothing but a parody of my actual argument. My conclusion that "Until you have hard evidence to that end, we have to conclude that the premise is true," is referring back to the previous argument that everything we know based on science and personal experience supports the premise "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"; therefore, the burden is on you to refute it. Just a single, verifiable example of something that began to exist without a cause will suffice. So, until you have hard evidence to that end, we have to conclude based on the facts on hand that the premise "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is true.

This isn't the first time you've gleefully run face first into a stupid argument in your desperation to prove me wrong about something.

OK, so on to your weak attempt to disprove Holding's "The Impossible Faith"... that sure is another nice laundry list you've vomited up. Now go ahead and prove that any of them are a viable refutation of the facts. For instance, suggesting that a clever writer could have invented an embarrassing detail to make his story seem more plausible doesn't explain why anybody would accept the story as true without other vindicating evidence to overcome the social stigma against it. To put it another way, your attempt at a rebuttal effectively amounts to "Nuh-uh!" In the meantime, I'll stick with the conclusions that are supported by actual evidence.

Now for your continued pathetic attempts to refute Craig, you say "There's probably an explanation, but I don't know what it is". Don't look now, but you've effectively conceded the argument. Instead of rebutting the premise, you just shrug your shoulders and act like it's somehow a refutation. Sorry, kiddo, but it doesn't work that way.

When I said, "Note that Craig's argument is not about what caused the universe as we know it to exist but why does the universe exist at all as opposed to not existing," I was preemptively refuting the common objection that the Big Bang caused our universe to exist, or the multiverse caused our universe to exist, which doesn't actually answer the question why the universe exists at all as opposed to not existing. I don't know if you were planning to go there or not, but I thought I would knock down those common objections anyway.

Regarding my statement that the Bible has passed the historical test with flying colors, the fact is that any time historical facts are definitively confirmed, they always and without fail affirm the Bible. There might be some things for which we lack definitive proof, such as the laundry list you presented in lieu of advancing an actual argument, and assuming that any of the implied arguments have merit in the first place, but there is not a single point of verified history that conflicts with the Bible, and you certainly haven't shown that there is.