Feedback On Series Of Questions

[♦ ficino ♦]

He is delving into conspiracy theory type arguments - evolution was created entirely to do away with God etc. I'm dealing with a person who thinks the US government brought down the twin towers, and that man never got to the moon.

Holy horsefeathers, Batman! Hmm... do you think he can acknowledge that the five senses are the first gateways by which we gain knowledge of the world? It sounds as though he would, since he holds that we can infer God from observing creation.

 

But then, will he acknowledge that various instruments extend the range of our sensory collection of data?

 

Can this be a way for him to back into a process of thinking that starts with what we observe and works from there, rather than starts from bronze age writings?

[LogicalFallacy]

 

He is delving into conspiracy theory type arguments - evolution was created entirely to do away with God etc. I'm dealing with a person who thinks the US government brought down the twin towers, and that man never got to the moon.

Holy horsefeathers, Batman! Hmm... do you think he can acknowledge that the five senses are the first gateways by which we gain knowledge of the world? It sounds as though he would, since he holds that we can infer God from observing creation.

 

But then, will he acknowledge that various instruments extend the range of our sensory collection of data?

 

Can this be a way for him to back into a process of thinking that starts with what we observe and works from there, rather than starts from bronze age writings?

 

*Sigh* Sadly ficino I have my doubts, but I gota try. If I fail I just tell him that we just can't talk religion and science anymore.

 

It's an uphill slog when someone thinks that anything said that does align with their revelation/understanding is a lie from Satan.

[sdelsolray]

...

In his mind he approaches it with the authority that God has inspired him to know this stuff, and to figure out what is true and what is not. This is a very difficult position to talk sense with because the person is so convinced that only their revelation is right.

...

He is delving into conspiracy theory type arguments - evolution was created entirely to do away with God etc. I'm dealing with a person who thinks the US government brought down the twin towers, and that man never got to the moon. The point here is it is hard pinning down his beliefs - hence me wanting feed back on my questions to see if they are well informed questions considering the circumstances.

 

 

You're dealing with a weapons-grade nutter, who thinks he's "special".  His religious addiction is simply a symptom of deeper psychological and emotional dysfunctions.   While it may be worth the effort to craft accurate questions for your own benefit and future use, your Christian target is likely beyond any hope.  Good luck anyway.

[LogicalFallacy]

Thanks. I know, but this Christian is close to me so I'm trying to maintain a relationship with him without going nuclear and saying he's a delusional arsehat. I'm pretty sure that would cause major problems that aren't worth it for want of some carefully worded questions.

 

Ultimately I see in the long run we are going to agree to bitterly disagree.

[bornagainathiest]

LogicalFallacy wrote...

 

"In his mind he approaches it with the authority that God has inspired him to know this stuff, and to figure out what is true and what is not.  This is a very difficult position to talk sense with because the person is so convinced that only their revelation is right."

 

Yes LF, difficult... and verging on the impossible.

I would have referred you to Romans 13 : 1 - 7 (obedience to earthly authorities) so that you could point out to him that there are rules and regs in science that he is supposed to uphold and honor.   But he can bat right back at you by quoting Peter's address to the Sanhedrin in Acts 4 : 18 - 20.   Peter had authority from God which transcended any earthly authority the Sanhedrin were trying to put him under.  So he was not under any earthly obligation to obey their commands.  Likewise, your Christian probably believes he is not under any earthly obligation to uphold or honor the ground rules of science.

 

And yet, isn't this exactly what he is claiming?  That he has divine authority to pick and choose what to obey, as it seems best to him?

If so, then you should remind him that Peter's authority wasn't something he proclaimed for himself without approval and recognition by God.  He and John were questioned by the Sanhedrin because of the beggar they had healed in Jesus' name.  So, there's God's recognition and approval of Peter's authority and there's your scriptural precedent.  Nobody who claims divine authority can do so legitimately without the appropriate evidence from God to back up their claim.  Otherwise they could well be one of the false prophets Jesus warned about.  So, you could ask your Christian for a sign from God that he has the divine authority he believes he has.

 

Needless to say LF, what I'm saying here is highly contentious!

You probably shouldn't go down this road as it will lead to a bitter disagreement very quickly indeed. 

Or, he'll rebuke for asking for that sign, saying, "Do not put the Lord to the test!" 

 

I'm sorry friend, but I'm all out of ideas as to how you can proceed. 

[LogicalFallacy]

LogicalFallacy wrote...

 

"In his mind he approaches it with the authority that God has inspired him to know this stuff, and to figure out what is true and what is not.  This is a very difficult position to talk sense with because the person is so convinced that only their revelation is right."

 

Yes LF, difficult... and verging on the impossible.

I would have referred you to Romans 13 : 1 - 7 (obedience to earthly authorities) so that you could point out to him that there are rules and regs in science that he is supposed to uphold and honor.   But he can bat right back at you by quoting Peter's address to the Sanhedrin in Acts 4 : 18 - 20.   Peter had authority from God which transcended any earthly authority the Sanhedrin were trying to put him under.  So he was not under any earthly obligation to obey their commands.  Likewise, your Christian probably believes he is not under any earthly obligation to uphold or honor the ground rules of science.

 

And yet, isn't this exactly what he is claiming?  That he has divine authority to pick and choose what to obey, as it seems best to him?

If so, then you should remind him that Peter's authority wasn't something he proclaimed for himself without approval and recognition by God.  He and John were questioned by the Sanhedrin because of the beggar they had healed in Jesus' name.  So, there's God's recognition and approval of Peter's authority and there's your scriptural precedent.  Nobody who claims divine authority can do so legitimately without the appropriate evidence from God to back up their claim.  Otherwise they could well be one of the false prophets Jesus warned about.  So, you could ask your Christian for a sign from God that he has the divine authority he believes he has.

 

Needless to say LF, what I'm saying here is highly contentious!

You probably shouldn't go down this road as it will lead to a bitter disagreement very quickly indeed. 

Or, he'll rebuke for asking for that sign, saying, "Do not put the Lord to the test!" 

 

I'm sorry friend, but I'm all out of ideas as to how you can proceed. 

"So, you could ask your Christian for a sign from God that he has the divine authority he believes he has" I have been soooo tempted to do this. SO tempted. 

 

The probable answer would be like you said, or "God has given you signs but you harden your heart," or a quote from Jesus "Even if the dead are raised yet they will not believe" 

 

The Christian has the ultimate 'make shit up to get out of hard questions' toolbox. Whereas me, I can't just make up stuff to disprove God.

 

Thanks BAA, Sigh, yep, I think the best I can do is see if I can clarify his position and go from there. 

 

Thanks to all for your input in this thread - far more than I was expecting. I'll see where I go with my dialogue with the christian and report back... probably with more "how do I handle this?" questions

[Shinzon]

I hope to hear more about this myself because you have a talent for dealing with belivers that some like myself could learn from.

[bornagainathiest]

 

LogicalFallacy wrote...

 

"In his mind he approaches it with the authority that God has inspired him to know this stuff, and to figure out what is true and what is not.  This is a very difficult position to talk sense with because the person is so convinced that only their revelation is right."

 

Yes LF, difficult... and verging on the impossible.

I would have referred you to Romans 13 : 1 - 7 (obedience to earthly authorities) so that you could point out to him that there are rules and regs in science that he is supposed to uphold and honor.   But he can bat right back at you by quoting Peter's address to the Sanhedrin in Acts 4 : 18 - 20.   Peter had authority from God which transcended any earthly authority the Sanhedrin were trying to put him under.  So he was not under any earthly obligation to obey their commands.  Likewise, your Christian probably believes he is not under any earthly obligation to uphold or honor the ground rules of science.

 

And yet, isn't this exactly what he is claiming?  That he has divine authority to pick and choose what to obey, as it seems best to him?

If so, then you should remind him that Peter's authority wasn't something he proclaimed for himself without approval and recognition by God.  He and John were questioned by the Sanhedrin because of the beggar they had healed in Jesus' name.  So, there's God's recognition and approval of Peter's authority and there's your scriptural precedent.  Nobody who claims divine authority can do so legitimately without the appropriate evidence from God to back up their claim.  Otherwise they could well be one of the false prophets Jesus warned about.  So, you could ask your Christian for a sign from God that he has the divine authority he believes he has.

 

Needless to say LF, what I'm saying here is highly contentious!

You probably shouldn't go down this road as it will lead to a bitter disagreement very quickly indeed. 

Or, he'll rebuke for asking for that sign, saying, "Do not put the Lord to the test!" 

 

I'm sorry friend, but I'm all out of ideas as to how you can proceed. 

"So, you could ask your Christian for a sign from God that he has the divine authority he believes he has" I have been soooo tempted to do this. SO tempted. 

 

The probable answer would be like you said, or "God has given you signs but you harden your heart," or a quote from Jesus "Even if the dead are raised yet they will not believe" 

 

The Christian has the ultimate 'make shit up to get out of hard questions' toolbox. Whereas me, I can't just make up stuff to disprove God.

 

Thanks BAA, Sigh, yep, I think the best I can do is see if I can clarify his position and go from there. 

 

Thanks to all for your input in this thread - far more than I was expecting. I'll see where I go with my dialogue with the christian and report back... probably with more "how do I handle this?" questions

 

 

You don't have to disprove God, LF.

He's the one making the claims, so the onus is on him to justify his claims.  If he wants you to disprove God, then he's unfairly shifting the burden of justification onto you, when it squarely belongs to him.

 

Also, please compare and contrast his behavior with yours.

He's prepared to 'make up shit' to validate his beliefs, whereas you can't find it within yourself to do that.  

 

So out of the two of you, where does the honesty and integrity lie?

[LogicalFallacy]

Ok folks, I am requesting a definition of "faith" from the christian, He said "Science is the toolbox (except the bits we don't like) to understand natural world, faith is the toolbox to understand god." (The same god that is beyond all understanding.) Hence I need to know what he is defining as faith.

 

The Christian is evolving defensive measures. He says "who said God is good? Good is a human concept. God is beyond all human understanding. Isiah says god says My thoughts are higher than your thoughts, my ways higher than your ways."

 

To me this is similar to divine command theory, (where anything god does is good because he is God) but with a twist. Essentially attempting to label God as evil doesn't work because what is good and evil is but a human construct. 

 

My points on this:

 

1) You cannot have a god beyond all human understanding (Basically a deist God) while at the same time claiming to have revelations from God, and knowing Gods will. The entire point of the bible is God is revealing himself so that we may understand him. Therefore God beyond all human comprehension fails for a theistic god.

 

2) If God is not good, in a manner we can define as good, then why bother worshiping such a god. You might as well worship a rock - at least you know the rock won't strike you dead.

 

3) If you cannot understand God, but have faith in God, how do you know you are worshiping the right God? The Muslims have faith and could be correct, the Hindus, the Buddhists etc.

 

4) If you don't know what God commands as good and evil then your absolute objective morality argument is dead in the water. If anything with god is good, but you don't know what that anything is then you have no objective morals.

 

5) The God of the bible being not necessarily 'human' good argument fails due to John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. The terms light and darkness here are obviously metaphor for good and evil.

 

 

So that's my thoughts - part record for me so I can remember, part so you guys can pursue and comment as this develops.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi LF, I think you're on a good track, and your questions 1-4 are excellent. A Christian may be able to monkey around with metaphor in response to your 5.

It sounds as though your Christian friend is going down the road taken by many sophisticated apologists, i.e. to define God so as to insulate theistic claims from falsification. The result usually turns out to be a god concept that has no tie to our reality. The universe as envisioned under that concept becomes described in a way that is indistinguishable from a universe in which there is no god.

 

One test, though, is: what are the outcomes of the unique teachings of a given religion? Not the stuff it shares with most human cultures, like norms about acting justly and compassionately, but its unique taboos and injunctions. Is the way people are pushed to behave by American Protestant fundamentalists, for example, a way to a flourishing life?

You may get some benefit out of Anthony Kenny's The Unknown God. Kenny talks about the failure of "God talk" to refer to anything we can determine is real.

 

I doubt that your friend has a clear and distinct idea of what "faith" is and of what work it can do.

[LogicalFallacy]

Hi ficino

I think you are bang on the nail. I know this Christian (Who claims revelation from God) is watching many youtube vids from apologetics, so I have little doubt that he is gleaning apologetics from them that suits him. And yes #5 is very weak - I had posted 1-4, then thought about 5 while feeding the dog

After all what better way is there to shut down an argument than to say "you can't argue against God, you have no concept of what God is, god is beyond our universe and beyond our understanding. You need faith and revelation through the spirit to understand God."

Presumably somehow the human mind is part of this universe, but faith and revelation comes from beyond it. Yet even faith and revelation must go through the human mind at some point. Therefore at some point this un-understandable god must be able to be understood by our minds.

 

Hmm back to dogs, this Christian is also equating our understanding of God like a dog understanding us - i.e doesn't understand our language, can't talk to us etc.

 

However, this also fails for the following reasons:

 

1) The dog absolutely knows you exist. You are not beyond its universe

2) The dog does understand you in its reality. This is shown by being able to train a dog to complex levels.

3) The dog directly communicates with you and receives predicted actions based on its actions. (Dropping the ball for you to throw, nuzzling you for a scratch etc)

4) The dog has a direct and personal relationship with you.

 

To truly compare God to human then it is more like Human to worm where the worm probably has no concept of our existance beyond basic nervous system telling it that something is picking it up. There is no communication, no two way relationship.

[LogicalFallacy]

Good god! (He says though he doesn't believe in such)

 

So my Christian friend.... I'm gonna [insert possibly violent action here]

 

First off I'm asking him what is faith? I get a lot of what faith isn't, and what it does, but not a lot of what it is, how it is defined.

 

We will get back to that. What has made me wild was this line "And they think it all just happened billions of years ago (referring to the big bang). It's a fairy tale. Was anyone there billions of years ago to witnesses it? Yet we have witnesses for Jesus resurrection and they (ahem me) says it didn't happen. I tell you they need faith to believe in the big bang" (Essentially I think he is suffering from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism)

 

A some what ironic statement considering the near non ability to define faith. But here it is this is the three statements of what I could get out of him in an hour and a half about what faith is:

 

1) Believing brings faith

2) The reports (Gospels) is evidence that results in faith

3) Faith is the result of evidence and reasoning.

 

So what we have here is a clear redefining of faith.

 

He seem to go very much down the William L Craig road of evidence for the resurrection, and the personal testimony of the gospel accounts of eye witnesses as evidence for his faith. Also the poor argument was made that why would the christian martyrs dies for something that didn't really happen?

 

So that's where I'm at. (My wits end!)

 

So BAA, I feel this has firmly and soundly put us at option C from your prior post. C. Christian faith should (i.e., must) have evidence to back it up, or else Christian faith is invalid (or else faith is blind, and the christian doesn't believe in blind faith. At least not this week)

 

So there are several roads I could go down:

1) A refutation of said gospel evidence. Predicted outcome: Christian will ignore all and any contrary evidence and hold to his belief. 

2) A request for evidence that this Christian is the channel through which God speaks (This is a long held assertion of his) Prediction: Soured relationship

3) Tell him that I don't see that we are ever going to agree at the current positions were are and its best to stop talking about it as we are fight each other not attempting to resolve our beliefs. (Outcome, possibly sour relationship, some tears... stuff like that)

 

[bornagainathiest]

Ok LF, let's go thru this.

 

First, if the Big Bang is a fairy tale, then how was it possible for scientists to accurately predict specific aspects of it BEFORE our telescopes and satellites detected these things?  There are only two possible answers.  Either it's not a fairy tale or these confirmed predictions are lies.  If Mr. Christian refuses to accept that these predictions were made and then independently confirmed, years later... then you might as well give up any and all reasonable and rational dialog with him.  Ditto if he claims them to be some kind of Satanic conspiracy.  Stonewall denialism like that cannot be reasoned with.

 

Second, these three points.

 

1. Believing brings faith.  Circular argument.  Belief without evidence cannot be used to support belief without evidence.

2. The gospel reports are evidence that brings faith.  'Nuther circular argument. The gospels cannot be independently verified from any extra-Biblical historical source.  Therefore, he believes in them by faith and not on the strength of any independent evidence. 

3. Faith is the result of evidence and reasoning.  If that's his thinking, then why doesn't he apply it to # 1 and # 2?  Let him show the evidence involved in # 1. (Ain't none!)  Let him show you (by reasoning) just how # 1 and # 2 aren't circular arguments.

 

As to option C...

 

Good luck with getting him to accept that his faith is blind and equally good luck with getting him to accept that what he calls evidence ...isn't.  From what you've described in this thread LF, it sounds like he made up his mind long ago to believe only on his terms and to never be swayed or deflected from them by anything like reason or logic or evidence. 

 

In geology the Mohs scale is used to rate the hardness of gemstones.

At the top of the scale is diamond, with a hardness of 10.  But the human will far surpasses the hardness of anything nature has to offer.  The obdurate stubbornness of Ironhorse in the face of logic, reason and evidence is a classic case in point.  So too with your Christian.  There is nothing you can do to alter this.

 

Which is why your three possible roads are all dead ends.

You will have no more success changing his mind or opening it up critical thinking than you are getting or will get with Ironhorse or Thumbelina.  They number among the ranks of the unpersuadables.  Here in Ex-C all we can do is to persist in holding their stonewall denialism under the spotlight, so that the lurkers and the other members can see them for exactly what they are.

 

Quite what you can do in your situation, I simply do not know, LF.

 

 

I'm sorry to come up empty on this, but sometimes life deals us a 'no-win' hand and we have no choice but to play it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

He seem to go very much down the William L Craig road of evidence for the resurrection, and the personal testimony of the gospel accounts of eye witnesses as evidence for his faith. Also the poor argument was made that why would the christian martyrs dies for something that didn't really happen?

Hey LF, I am guessing that you are up on reasons why the "they would not undergo martyrdom for what they knew was a lie" argument fails. But shout out if you're not up on its weaknesses.

 

As for Big Bang, etc. - is he doing the Ken Ham sleight of hand by claiming that the speed of light has changed over time?

[LogicalFallacy]

BAA, thanks my friend. Great analogy of the diamond. Underlying all certainly is an aspect that Satan is controlling n evil world, and incidentally influencing me. I am quite prepared that my arguments to him are just hitting a brick wall with a rubber hammer. Everything is either not real science, or a conspiracy to destroy God. I have actually drafted my Big Bang response to him with the very things you talk about.

 

I think the best I can do is put forward rebuttals, then ask for independent verifiable evidence to be reproduced

 

Oh, he also claims that faith brings supernatural results - so prayer answered etc. I am going to point out the quite massive hit rate in our own lives of prayer, and that no real demonstration can be made that the supernatural affects anything. Everything he claim as supernatural has a perfectly natural explanation that does not require the supernatural to have occurred. (Insurance given, cancer remission, personal experience etc)

 

 

 

He seem to go very much down the William L Craig road of evidence for the resurrection, and the personal testimony of the gospel accounts of eye witnesses as evidence for his faith. Also the poor argument was made that why would the christian martyrs dies for something that didn't really happen?

Hey LF, I am guessing that you are up on reasons why the "they would not undergo martyrdom for what they knew was a lie" argument fails. But shout out if you're not up on its weaknesses.

 

As for Big Bang, etc. - is he doing the Ken Ham sleight of hand by claiming that the speed of light has changed over time?

 

Hi ficino

 

To be honest my knowledge in that area is weak. I have more concentrated on problem of evil arguments, and rebutting creationist/Intelligent design arguments.

 

My off the cuff rebuttal to the martyrdom argument is for him to look around the world at Islamic Terrorists who die believing they will go to heaven. Does that make Islam true then? (His answer is no) Well then why apply it to Christian martyrs - the best we can say is people will die for what they believe in regardless of the validity of that belief.

 

If you have a better rebuttal I'd love to hear it.

 

Big Bang stuff: Hmmm is that where he pulled this "speed of light is not constant" pitch from? He brought that out several weeks ago and blindsided me. I said no he was wrong, light is constant (Except under very specific conditions I have read) and you can use it to measure distances to stars and thus figure out how far away in time they are. No no he says, speed of light is a measure of distance. Yes I say, 1 LY is the amount of TIME it takes light to travel 10 trillion km (approx.)So we can use that to say a star is 4 LY away meaning it takes 4 years at the speed of light to get here. At this point there were more mutterings about how the speed of light could have changed.

 

Cheers guys, I'll take on thoughts given and any extras coming into my reply to him.

 

In the end it's probably pointless, but the one thing he won't be able to say is that I didn't have a robust discussion with him.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi ficino

 

To be honest my knowledge in that area is weak. I have more concentrated on problem of evil arguments, and rebutting creationist/Intelligent design arguments.

 

My off the cuff rebuttal to the martyrdom argument is for him to look around the world at Islamic Terrorists who die believing they will go to heaven. Does that make Islam true then? (His answer is no) Well then why apply it to Christian martyrs - the best we can say is people will die for what they believe in regardless of the validity of that belief.

 

If you have a better rebuttal I'd love to hear it.

Hi, I think I have a better rebuttal than your ISIS comparison, but at this point I doubt that much is going to convince your friend until Life humbles him, takes away his pride, and brings him to a place of brokenness where he cries out for Reality.

 

Heh heh.

 

Re what I think of as the Who Moved the Stone? argument (cuz it was in Frank Morison's book proving the resurrection, called Who Moved the Stone?):

 

the heart of the apologist's argument about the apostles' martyrdoms is the claim that no one would suffer torture or death maintaining what s/he KNOWS is a lie. Not, "no one would die for a lie," but "no one would die for what they know is a lie."

 

rebuttals I can think of:

 

1. This is the strongest: we don't know that the apostles were martyred. The traditions of their martyrdoms are later and even more tainted with legendary embellishment than are the gospels. Stories of persecution of the first generations of Christians are largely unfounded. The go-to source on this is Candida Moss' The Myth of Persecution (2013):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Persecution

 

2. This is the second strongest: we don't know that, if some apostles were martyred, they were given a chance to recant. They may have been simply rounded up and executed as seditionists. The account of Nero's persecution of Christians in Tacitus has been suspected by some of being a later interpolation, but in any case, it does not present Nero's persecution in 64 A.D. as involving interrogation and chances to recant. Pliny's description of his own interrogations comes from 110 A.D. so is too late to serve as evidence that the first generation of apostles were given a chance to recant by the authorities, if they indeed were executed.

 

3. they may have believed in a spiritual resurrection and not a bodily resurrection of the kind that was preached by the second century orthodox church. And a spiritual resurrection isn't good enough for what your friend needs, because he needs more than "visions" experienced by religious enthusiasts. He needs a physical body exiting the tomb. Arguments that the first generation of christians only believed in a spiritual resurrection have been made by, among others, James Tabor. Tabor starts from the premise that Paul's epistles are our earliest sources, and from them you can't get anything more than that Paul claims to have seen the risen Jesus in visions. Then, in Mark we don't get resurrection appearances of a bodily Jesus. The later the gospel, the more "physical" the risen Jesus becomes:

https://jamestabor.com/how-faith-in-jesus-resurrection-originated-and-developed-a-newold-hypothesis/

Other apostles may have started out with visions that later stories reworked into a resurrection narrative. Paul just says Jesus "was seen" or whatever by so and so.

 

4. someone may have built a whole career and gained much prestige within a group for maintaining what started out as a lie. Eventually, it may becomes psychologically impossible to go back and publicly recant. 

 

5. someone may be a religious enthusiast who believes based on recovered, embellished but false memory, esp. when the event is retold and rehashed within the group.

 

6. some of the above factors may hold for one apostle, others for others, there's no way to know now except in the case of Paul. Any of them is intrinsically more probable than the thesis that Jesus was dead but came to life again after a day and a half. The probability of THAT is almost zero.

 

7. Your friend may argue from I Corinthians that Jesus was seen by over 500 at one time, many of whom were still living. There isn't any verification of this, but Paul's addition of the fact that many are still living suggests that his readers in Corinth were to go to Palestine and hunt around for eyewitnesses. No one would have done that. It's a bogus invitation to evidence, not an actual presentation of evidence. If the belief in Jesus' resurrection were as well founded as your friend needs it to be, then the Corinthians would not have entertained major doubt about it.

 

8. I'll add my own informal argument. The resurrection, if it occurred, is the most stupendous and signficant event in the history of humanity. With people's eternal salvation depending on belief in it, WHY does an omniscient and omnipotent God leave its advertising campaign to a mess of contradictions such as the four gospels? Why did Jesus himself keep his resurrection secret? Was he afraid the Romans would arrest him again? Or he wanted to make belief difficult for the Jews - when miracles like the resurrection of countless other saints had occurred? Etc etc. What kind of God would play these hide and seek games with his creatures eternal destinies? He's the omnipotent one around here, not us. 

 

9. Spinning off 8: there is no way to construct an account of the events in Jesus' ministry from Good Friday through Ascension Day from the gospels and Acts without contradiction. Therefore, the Bible in its historical assertions, literally construed, is not inerrant. Therefore YEC does not rest on inerrant texts, since it depends on the Bible's historical assertions literally construed.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA, thanks my friend. Great analogy of the diamond. Underlying all certainly is an aspect that Satan is controlling n evil world, and incidentally influencing me. I am quite prepared that my arguments to him are just hitting a brick wall with a rubber hammer. Everything is either not real science, or a conspiracy to destroy God. I have actually drafted my Big Bang response to him with the very things you talk about.

 

I think the best I can do is put forward rebuttals, then ask for independent verifiable evidence to be reproduced

 

Oh, he also claims that faith brings supernatural results - so prayer answered etc. I am going to point out the quite massive hit rate in our own lives of prayer, and that no real demonstration can be made that the supernatural affects anything. Everything he claim as supernatural has a perfectly natural explanation that does not require the supernatural to have occurred. (Insurance given, cancer remission, personal experience etc)

 

 

 

He seem to go very much down the William L Craig road of evidence for the resurrection, and the personal testimony of the gospel accounts of eye witnesses as evidence for his faith. Also the poor argument was made that why would the christian martyrs dies for something that didn't really happen?

Hey LF, I am guessing that you are up on reasons why the "they would not undergo martyrdom for what they knew was a lie" argument fails. But shout out if you're not up on its weaknesses.

 

As for Big Bang, etc. - is he doing the Ken Ham sleight of hand by claiming that the speed of light has changed over time?

 

Hi ficino

 

To be honest my knowledge in that area is weak. I have more concentrated on problem of evil arguments, and rebutting creationist/Intelligent design arguments.

 

My off the cuff rebuttal to the martyrdom argument is for him to look around the world at Islamic Terrorists who die believing they will go to heaven. Does that make Islam true then? (His answer is no) Well then why apply it to Christian martyrs - the best we can say is people will die for what they believe in regardless of the validity of that belief.

 

If you have a better rebuttal I'd love to hear it.

 

Big Bang stuff: Hmmm is that where he pulled this "speed of light is not constant" pitch from? He brought that out several weeks ago and blindsided me. I said no he was wrong, light is constant (Except under very specific conditions I have read) and you can use it to measure distances to stars and thus figure out how far away in time they are. No no he says, speed of light is a measure of distance. Yes I say, 1 LY is the amount of TIME it takes light to travel 10 trillion km (approx.)So we can use that to say a star is 4 LY away meaning it takes 4 years at the speed of light to get here. At this point there were more mutterings about how the speed of light could have changed.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sorry to butt in on your reply to Ficino LF, but this is totally relevant.  

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60105-a-challenge-to-funguyrye/?hl=bahcall#.WH_1HFOLSpo

 

I drafted this as a challenge for a Christian (FunGuyRye) who has since left this forum and deleted all of his content.

 

My opening post is worded in such a way that you can copy-and-paste almost all of it and e-mail it to your YEC Christian.

 

Down as far as the end of 'Relevant Points'.

.

.

.

Post # 34 also contains further relevant links that cement the case I made.

.

.

.

All four pages of this thread should be of interest to you LF, because the Christian I was debating with held a very similar position to your YEC.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cheers guys, I'll take on thoughts given and any extras coming into my reply to him.

 

In the end it's probably pointless, but the one thing he won't be able to say is that I didn't have a robust discussion with him.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Hi ficino

 

To be honest my knowledge in that area is weak. I have more concentrated on problem of evil arguments, and rebutting creationist/Intelligent design arguments.

 

My off the cuff rebuttal to the martyrdom argument is for him to look around the world at Islamic Terrorists who die believing they will go to heaven. Does that make Islam true then? (His answer is no) Well then why apply it to Christian martyrs - the best we can say is people will die for what they believe in regardless of the validity of that belief.

 

If you have a better rebuttal I'd love to hear it.

 

 

8. I'll add my own informal argument. The resurrection, if it occurred, is the most stupendous and signficant event in the history of humanity. With people's eternal salvation depending on belief in it, WHY does an omniscient and omnipotent God leave its advertising campaign to a mess of contradictions such as the four gospels? Why did Jesus himself keep his resurrection secret? Was he afraid the Romans would arrest him again? Or he wanted to make belief difficult for the Jews - when miracles like the resurrection of countless other saints had occurred? Etc etc. What kind of God would play these hide and seek games with his creatures eternal destinies? He's the omnipotent one around here, not us. 

 

ficino - something that bothers me about how important the resurrection supposedly was, is that it was not the first resurrection of anyone in the bible from the dead - therefore why the particular emphasis on it? Apparently dead men thrown on the bones of a prophet rose, Jaris daughter raised from the dead, apparently the graves of many were opened and were seen by the saints upon Jesus resurrection. Where is the corroboration for all this? Can this avenue be used as part of an argument or is it just semantics?

 

BAA - thanks for that, I most certainly will use that. I have mentioned that supernova as evidence for an older earth before, but haven't quite run through the details.

[LogicalFallacy]

BAA, its 11:39pm... I just fried my brain circuits! Been reading all up on the Supernova and went so far as to read some source material. Amazing stuff... at least the bits I can understand.

[♦ ficino ♦]

ficino - something that bothers me about how important the resurrection supposedly was, is that it was not the first resurrection of anyone in the bible from the dead - therefore why the particular emphasis on it? Apparently dead men thrown on the bones of a prophet rose, Jaris daughter raised from the dead, apparently the graves of many were opened and were seen by the saints upon Jesus resurrection. Where is the corroboration for all this? Can this avenue be used as part of an argument or is it just semantics?

The theological importance of Jesus' resurrection doesn't lie in the fact that someone came to life after having died. Who it was who came to life is what makes it central, as no other "resurrection" is. From the Christian POV, all other resurrections are derivative. In Christian preaching, Jesus' resurrection establishes him as the god-man triumphant. It constitutes his victory over death and the devil. The initiate into the cult taps into the power that won such a victory - a victory that makes it possible for the initiate to "put on the divine nature," as I Peter talks about. The resurrection of anyone else, whether earlier or later in salvation history, is made possible only because Jesus rose from the dead. That's Paul's argument in I Corinthians: we will rise from the dead because Jesus already rose from the dead.

 

And belief in Jesus' resurrection is a requirement for conversion in the NT texts. Not belief in anyone else's resurrection or in the Pharisees' "the resurrection" of all the just. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him [my italics] from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9.

 

The above may all be obvious.

 

I agree that the evidence for other resurrection stories in the Bible is even more tenuous. But their theological significance is derivative, as I suggested above.

 

So I think the "hiddenness" of Jesus' resurrection is a problem for the Christian. Obviously, they can say that God makes the evidence obscure so that true faith is necessary for conversion. But then we're back to the picture of an omni-everything God playing hide and seek with rational creatures who He knows will be bombarded with all sorts of religious claims. Sad.

[LogicalFallacy]

Thanks ficino
 

So I think the "hiddenness" of Jesus' resurrection is a problem for the Christian. Obviously, they can say that God makes the evidence obscure so that true faith is necessary for conversion. But then we're back to the picture of an omni-everything God playing hide and seek with rational creatures who He knows will be bombarded with all sorts of religious claims. Sad.

I have actually mentioned this to my friend. I said God (Assuming he exists... and is sexist)must have known that I would start question, must have known I would look for evidence, and so must have intentionally made any evidence vague or suspect. In fact there is a scripture that 'God would send a strong delusion that they would believe a lie least he have to save and heal them.' (This concept is found in both old and new testaments) So I asked: How do you know that God is not intentionally deluding me into thinking there is no God so he doesn't have to save me?

The answer: I don't know, God might be doing that.........  Cool I'm being fooled by an omniscient deity!

[bornagainathiest]

A brief announcement.

 

I will be away from Ex-C for (perhaps) the next two weeks.

 

My partner has just received some very sad news and we are acting upon it today.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[LogicalFallacy]

I'm sorry to hear that BAA, my thoughts are with you and your partner.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I am very sorry, BAA. Post or PM if you want to vent. Peace, f

[Shinzon]

If he is giving you trouble in the resurrection, my take would be to show how given all that is known about the historical jesus, and the gospels that the miracle occuring actually would explain less then what it would if christianity was false. Its essentially the habermas minimal facts method without the composition fallacy.

 

And specifically on the who would die for a lie arguement. My reply would be they belived it to be true, but there christianity and your friends christianity was very different. They belived that jesus resurrection was the beginning of the end of the age, the gospels are what you get when people started to realize the end wasnt going to come. If they believed in a bodily resurrection at all, the gospel accounts are at best the traditions of 60 ad and on christians and not 30 ad christians due to the lack of a coherent narrative between the four gospels. Hallucinations, cognitive dissonace and legend, it fits the data and what is generally understood as the historical jesus.