Why the hell are we always asked, to do things like, provide a complete naturalistic explanation for every fucking miracle in the book from the resurrection to healing to god helping to find a parking spot?
Now to my point. I know their are wildly differing views but both work.
A:If there is no god, nor good reason to believe one exists.
A1:Generic theism has been proven...(if things like Kalam, ontological arguement, and the various thinks natural theology provides fodder for).
That does not however prove Christianity.
Here is why.
Say we are discussing, the resurrection of jesus, and we are say talking to habermas, or Craig, and they start saying whatever these facts are, whether they be, he was lain in a tomb, or was born on April 1st, or Paul received what he said from the apostles etc.
All of the apologetics arguments for the resurrection or gospels reliability being true(hypothetically) does not mean anything more then, we know what they believed happened. We know what they attributed their subjective experiences too. They saw the feeding of the 5000, they thought, a god man. We see that today and think snake oil salesman. That is just one example of many. They also believed they saw Jesus rise from the dead (if you believe the apologetics arguements at any rate), but that doesn't automatically mean they were correct in their experiences, nor we could glean what actually happened.
To put it another way. If all these apologetics arguements are true, we know what they believed, and why they decided to believe it, and what they thought they experienced but nothing more then that. And we are not required logically, even if we may want to be so, to ever know, what exactly caused, their experiences. It becomes then a situation of, I don't know, but you sure as hell don't either.
Why I say this is because, if there is no good reason to believe that there is a god, like say from other errors in Christianity or lack of evidence or the problem of evil. Then there is no way historical apologetics could prove more then that.
The situation gets more interesting generic theism. Because there is no way you can connect A to B. A being generic theism and B being christianity. Historical arguements for the veracity of the bible may be true but if you can't prove that there is a theistic god willing to do the things needed in the bible, then your still stuck with the same conclusion. One could even go as far to say something like, god made the bible innerrant to fool people. Or god is a maltheist using the bible to fool people. Or its a Deist god that is unwilling or unable. You of course can't particularly prove it either way. But that is more or less the point. If it becomes a matter of faith, then that is about the same as making belief an option and absurd.
The same think applies for more or less the entire bible. Even moses. You got to believe that there is a type of god, willing to part the red sea, before you can say its a historical fact it was done the way the bible described it. If not its a case of we know, only what they think happened.
The argument becomes circular because your using your conclusion to prove your conclusion. This is a problem when your premise is either nonexistent in the case of atheism or unprovable in the case of generic theism.
Well anyway bust my balls if I made a error.
ANd sorry for grammer errors I would have finished this earlier if I didn't find out crtl w closes the tab your working in and it being 2 am.
Edited by Valk0010, 10 July 2012 - 04:45 AM.