What Do I Believe?

[HymenaeusAlexander]

We've moved from fine-tuning to a cosmological argument with some equivocation thrown in and now we're on to the EAAN.

 

*Yawn*

 

Any bets on what's next? At least it's not just biblebot anymore.

[TrueFreedom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism

[florduh]

"The Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it."

 

Brilliant and persuasive logic. I certainly can't refute the wisdom of believing outrageous tales despite the lack of evidence.

 

Game over, Ben wins.

 

Next?

[barnacleben]

At least Ben writes something of substance and appears to exhibit some intelligence in his posts. Yes, he quotes the Bible extensively, but he also supplements that with his own original interpretation and connects it to the discussion at hand.

 

I'd be fine with continuing to converse with Ben. I do appear to be in the minority though.

Thank you for the kind words.

 

My goal is not to present original interpretations, but historic confessional ones. Since the restoration movement of the 1850s, American evangelicalism has largely divorced itself from the historic Christian church. This has led to the introduction of many novel misrepresentations of scripture that have no foundation in "the faith once for all delivered to the saints". In addition, American restorationism promoted the idea that the 1850's was the beginning of a new apostolic era. This led many to seek private revelation from God in their hearts, outside of God's word.

 

It is hard to find a pastor that does not say something like "God spoke to me this morning, and told me to pray for Jim." This is a form of manipulation. By giving the impression that God speaks to him directly, he manipulates his con-victims into accepting his false teachings as coming directly from God. However, this contradicts scripture. When God came to people in the OT, and to commission his prophets, He did so directly, and without ambiguity. Furthermore, Christ, the God-man,  personally commissioned his apostles to recall all that He had taught them through the Paraclete. Scripture makes it clear that in these last days,  revelation can't come outside of Jesus. So unless the pastor is also claiming that Jesus stood before him and commanded him to pray for Jim, he is lying.

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son(Heb1)

 

Sometimes seeing scriptures confessed in the same way that the ancient doctors of the church confessed them can seem novel, since the many congregations in America are dissociated from the past.

[florduh]

How many Christians who have come here have told us we haven't heard or understood the True Message of the Bible? How many claim that they have the only Proper Interpretation of Scripture?

 

Oh yeah, all of them.

[Thackerie]

 

As always, Ben could call upon his god to offer up an irrefutable sign, and his god would answer his prayers (or not, depending on his god's will).  Thus far, I have yet to see such sign, unless, of course, it is his god's will.  In which case, it wouldn't matter anywhere, and the circle starts again.

If Jesus appeared to me, and standing before me commissioned me to proclaim his words as his mouthpiece then I would probably do just that. But since He hasn't, I will stick with the commission He has given: proclaim repentance and forgiveness of sins in his name to all nations.

 

Seriously, why does anyone who believes in a supernatural being try to argue logically?  Just have your god(s) do something that shows their supernatural ability!! 

Technically, all people that developed logic as a discipline believed in the supernatural. Also, technically, all atheists believe in the supernatural. 13.7 Billion years ago, matter energy space and time came into existence. Atheists appeal to a time-independent eternal first cause of a "naturalistic character", but this is still a metaphysical appeal to the supernatural.

That which is beyond the natural must exist, and everyone knows it. The fact that they know it does not render them incapable of logical reasoning.

 

In fact, it is naturalism that makes rationality suspect. According to naturalists, human thought and reason is corrupted with false irrational ideas in order to give humans a survival advantage. This reasoning destroys the foundations of reason itself. What reason do you have to believe that your beliefs are anything more than a complex set of chemical reactions working in patterns that maximize the health and number of your offspring?

 

 

Compare post #250 with post #238 -- It appears this troll is repeating himself word-for-word. Must be running out of ammo.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

As always, Ben could call upon his god to offer up an irrefutable sign, and his god would answer his prayers (or not, depending on his god's will).  Thus far, I have yet to see such sign, unless, of course, it is his god's will.  In which case, it wouldn't matter anywhere, and the circle starts again.

If Jesus appeared to me, and standing before me commissioned me to proclaim his words as his mouthpiece then I would probably do just that. But since He hasn't, I will stick with the commission He has given: proclaim repentance and forgiveness of sins in his name to all nations.

 

So what if you are hallucinating when you see Jesus appear before you and gives you instructions? How would you know you were not hallucinating? You can keep proclaiming repentance and forgiveness of "sins" all you want, but it isn't going to change the fact that most of us have concluded that your god is likely not real and that if he is/was real, then your god is also a monster.

 

Besides, why should we even need to be forgiven when according to scripture, your god programmed us to do things he did not like us doing, simply because Adam and Eve disobeyed by learning the difference between good and evil. If I decided to build a bunch of robots and programmed them to kill whoever they want, but then commanded them not to and programmed them to feel guilty for killing whoever they want to, are those robots to blame? The robots are doing all of the killing and they know that they are supposed to feel guilty for it, despite not being able to stop themselves from doing it on their own free will, so does that mean I bear no responsibility? Does that mean they are wicked and immoral, but I'm perfect because I told them not to kill?

 

In my opinion, no, it doesn't. If I did that, I would be completely responsible for everything the robots did. That does not mean that the robots don't need to change their behavior or find a way to alter their programming so they are less dangerous, but the responsibility for their actions rests entirely on me, so I can't blame the robots and wash my hands of it saying, "You chose to do what I programmed you to do, now repent of killing and I will forgive you for doing it."

 

 

 

 

In my experience, "troll" is usually used to describe insincere people who write short post to goad others others into getting angry and wasting their time with long responses. While you don't have to take my word for it, I am not bored, but in fact very busy, which is why I'm only to page 3 so far in this thread. I am not in high school, I completed graduate school 10 years ago. I have 4 children. I am actually sincere in my responses, and I'm not trying to goad anyone or inflame their passions.

 

 

I don't think there is just one kind of troll, BB. I know of trolls that are called POEs. They pretend to be Christians and create long arguments that appear to be thought out, just so they can drag the non-believers who attempt to debate against them through a wild goose chase. You don't come on here very often, so I am willing to believe that you are probably busy in your every day life, so you might not be bored, but I can't guarantee that you haven't been leading everyone that has decided to engage you, through a wild goose chase.

 

If, as you say, you most certainly are not a troll, than you make me feel sad. Personally, I hope that you are just a POE. If you have managed to delude yourself enough to believe that the Bible god is moral and perfect, then in reality, all that you are is a frightened man, doing everything he can to appease some tyrant who lives up in the sky, watching your every move like Big Brother, who is more than willing to torture you with flames after you die because of every little mistake you have ever made in your entire life, deciding whether or not to forgive you based on what you decide to believe.

 

You may have convinced yourself somehow that you love the Bible god, but to do so, you would need to suppress the fear you have for that god and somehow find a way to rationalize everything he says or does in the Bible that you know is wrong or immoral. So, in all honesty, whether or not you are a POE, I actually hope that you are a POE, trolling us by convincing us you believe things you don't actually believe, because I would hate to think that you are a victim, trapped in a cult that does not allow you to doubt the teachings, lest you end up suffering some horrendous fate for ever doubting.

[♦ ficino ♦]

We've moved from fine-tuning to a cosmological argument with some equivocation thrown in and now we're on to the EAAN.

 

*Yawn*

 

Any bets on what's next? At least it's not just biblebot anymore.

Hey Hymenaeus, I hadn't heard of EAAN until you mentioned it.  Found someone's blog that contains people's discussion of Platinga's version:

 

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2012/07/a-short-version-of-plantingas-eaan.html

 

Do you have a background in discussion of this argument? I'd love to hear your take on how strong you think it is.  I'm guessing from the above that you think, "not very."

[barnacleben]

The bible itself can not be used as proof, you need external documentation to support it.  Quotes, by themselves, do not make your case, because you are supposed to back up why you believe as you do.  Your arguments are supposed to come from you; quotes are meant to supplement your point. While sometimes it is good to leave something to stand for itself, but it should not be the meat of your argument. It is up to you to explain why we should believe it.

 

Even putting in your personal experience is better than just quoting scripture. Even if personal experience can't be used as evidence, but it would at least make your case a little more understandable.  

I am not working off of the same presuppositions, here are some of mine:

1) The Bible is a library of texts from many human authors, therefore it counts as multiple source documents. While the synoptics are not fully independent and share a common framework, they do do contain independent elements.

 

2) Jesus makes no claim to provide history with undeniable proof, but makes it clear that people will deny it. If there were undeniable proof that Christ was the savior of the world, it would make him a liar and not the savior of the world.

 

3) In terms of evidence and argument, my objective is refuting arguments that suggest it is unreasonable to believe the Biblical accounts are true.

 

4) Scripture does not promise the Holy Spirit will move people's hearts from unbelief to belief through clever arguments. However, I am still exhorted to give a rational defense of the hope I have in Christ in gentleness and respect.

 

5) Great scholars, philosophers, theologians, and thinkers come up with most of the well-reasoned and persuasive arguments. The best I can do is rehash the arguments that I find persuasive in a clear and understandable way.

 

6) I don't put much stock in personal testimonies about ourselves. There's not much about me which attests to the truthfulness of Christianity, or who Jesus is. I am a sinner. When I wake up in the morning I feel instinctively hostile towards God. My natural desire is to avoid hearing God's word preached. Even in those rare times that I want to, I fail to love my neighbor as myself. I am a sinner who deserves God's wrath.

That is why the gospel is so jarring. I can see the existence God has made destroying me and everyone I love, one day at a time. But instead, God claims he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster, and that he accomplished these things about himself in the cross: the forgiveness of the sins of the world for all who believe.

 

And from a Christian perspective, a war of ideas ensues between the Truth that saves, and the satanic deceptions which result in unbelief and damnation.

[mymistake]

How many Christians who have come here have told us we haven't heard or understood the True Message of the Bible? How many claim that they have the only Proper Interpretation of Scripture?

 

Oh yeah, all of them.

 

Another isolated incident?   

[barnacleben]

Quoting the Bible is evidence as much as quoting the Egyptian Book of the Dead is evidence.

And yet many here are claiming "Egyptians" never existed, but were invented by colluding archaeologists to secure their own positions of power in the academic hierarchy.

[florduh]

When I wake up in the morning I feel instinctively hostile towards God. My natural desire is to avoid hearing God's word preached. Even in those rare times that I want to, I fail to love my neighbor as myself. I am a sinner who deserves God's wrath.

 

WTF? That's one hell of a religion you've decided to believe. As a Christian I certainly wasn't hostile toward God. Now, of course, I'm not hostile toward God because he's not actually there as I had been led to believe.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

Quoting the Bible is evidence as much as quoting the Egyptian Book of the Dead is evidence.

And yet many here are claiming "Egyptians" never existed, but were invented by colluding archaeologists to secure their own positions of power in the academic hierarchy.

 

 

Who was claiming that?

[stryper]

 

Quoting the Bible is evidence as much as quoting the Egyptian Book of the Dead is evidence.

And yet many here are claiming "Egyptians" never existed, but were invented by colluding archaeologists to secure their own positions of power in the academic hierarchy.

 

 

 

Liar!

[mymistake]

 

 

Quoting the Bible is evidence as much as quoting the Egyptian Book of the Dead is evidence.

And yet many here are claiming "Egyptians" never existed, but were invented by colluding archaeologists to secure their own positions of power in the academic hierarchy.

 

 

Who was claiming that?

 

 

 

[RipVanWinkle]

"It is hard to distinguish between a troll and a real believer since their activities are pretty much identical but no matter, all of the Ex-C's here have provided a wonderful service refuting scripture so, in case he is a real believer he will go away with some food for thought. Maybe your arguments will start to gnaw at him and his Christianity will be begin to erode." #246

 

Midniterider: A real believer never goes out with anything he didn't come in with. bill

[barnacleben]

So you are for predestination? I don't get it at all.  I am glad I don't have to understand this convoluted mess anymore.

I am not "for" predestination like one roots for a football team, rather the Bible teaches that God predestines everyone to salvation through Jesus' work on the cross. Every sin has already been paid for in full.

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.(1Jn2)

 

I guess  you think ole Jeff will get some kind of punishment, but we have the "righteousness of Christ" whatever that means.  It is all complete baloney. Makes no sense whatsoever.

When Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered in prison, he was a baptized believer who trusted in Jesus for the forgiveness of his sins. Jesus carried Dahmer's sins to the cross.

 

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.(2Cor5)

In Christ, Jeffrey Dahmer is my brother, and the righteousness of God.

[Astreja]

And yet many here are claiming "Egyptians" never existed, but were invented by colluding archaeologists to secure their own positions of power in the academic hierarchy.

 

No, Ben, I for one think that Egyptians did indeed exist.  In fact, they still exist -- Watch the evening news sometime. 

 

However, the Exodus fable in the OT is pure camel manure.  There isn't a scrap of valid archaeological evidence in the territory where the "chosen people" allegedly wandered for 40 years.   My guess is that it was probably made up by a rabbi while the Israelites were captive in Babylon, to encourage the community:  "We were delivered from Egypt, and we'll be freed from this place too!"

 

And what's with your Jeffrey Dahmer obsession, anyway?  I do hope you aren't planning to become a serial killer and beg for forgiveness on your deathbed.

[centauri]

... In terms of evidence and argument, my objective is refuting arguments that suggest it is unreasonable to believe the Biblical accounts are true.

First you need to define "unreasonable".

Why is it reasonable to believe this happened?

 

Matt 27:50-53

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

 

The biggest problem with your version of truth is that it relies on cult tradition for its validation.

This amazing event was somehow missed by not only contemporary non-cult writers but it was also missed by every other New Testament writer.

The author of Luke, who proclaimed that he was writing to confirm key teachings, fails to mention an event even bigger than the resurrection of Jesus.

Please explain why it is unreasonable to believe that this tale is nothing more than an embellishment written to jazz up the story.

And if this story is creative fiction, why can't there be other fictions in the Gospels?

 

 

 

And from a Christian perspective, a war of ideas ensues between the Truth that saves, and the satanic deceptions which result in unbelief and damnation.

And for many non-members of the cult, truth doesn't rest on a foundation of assumptions, speculations, special pleading, and claims founded on cult lore.

Asserting isn't establishing.

You haven't done anything to validate that your version of truth is accurate, binding, that it saves, or that thinking things contrary to your version of reality result in damnation.

 

 

[mymistake]

Okay, can we show the Jeffrey Dahmer lover the door?  If THAT is the righteousness of God then sane people should want no part of it.

[JamesG]

and we keep spinning around on the merry-go-fuck-my-brain-round.!!!

 

now to distract your     

[florduh]

Ben, they seem to be tiring of your rhetoric. Redeem yourself quickly!!!

[Guest end3]

and we keep spinning around on the merry-go-fuck-my-brain-round.!!!

 

now to distract your     

Ha, my statement to you.....what makes one ride any more distinct at your suggested carnival?  I can't seem to think it matters at this point.  Excuse me, I need to go buy some more tickets....

[HymenaeusAlexander]

 

We've moved from fine-tuning to a cosmological argument with some equivocation thrown in and now we're on to the EAAN.

 

*Yawn*

 

Any bets on what's next? At least it's not just biblebot anymore.

Hey Hymenaeus, I hadn't heard of EAAN until you mentioned it.  Found someone's blog that contains people's discussion of Platinga's version:

 

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2012/07/a-short-version-of-plantingas-eaan.html

 

Do you have a background in discussion of this argument? I'd love to hear your take on how strong you think it is.  I'm guessing from the above that you think, "not very."

 

 

The first time I encountered the EAAN was in Tim Keller’s book The Reason for God (pp. 138-139). The fact that he puts it in a section of the book dealing with what he calls “clues” for God’s existence suggests that even he doesn’t see it as anything more than a push-back to throw at people like Dawkins who might argue that evolutionary theory is in direct conflict with theism.

 

You can imagine that Reformed apologists love the argument because it fits right in with TAG. As such, I got a more extended look at it from either an RTS or Westminster west professor. I can’t remember which. Anyway, I read a paper from one of those guys that had adapted it as a supplement to TAG. Of course, at the time I thought it was a slam dunk against naturalism. I didn’t really revisit it until later after I had pretty much left Christianity. After all, just because Christianity was false it didn’t mean naturalism was true. I still got the sense that EAAN was really just an argument from consequence. What I mean is that maybe we really can’t trust our minds about anything, but that doesn’t necessarily falsify naturalism. It just seems like shades of the typical TAG regress to the Münchhausen trilemma. Perhaps we just have to posit that we can trust that our minds can be capable of forming true beliefs. Really, what other choice do we have? It’s similar to the way I view solipsism.

 

There are quite a few scholarly refutations of EAAN critiquing both Plantinga’s (mis)understanding of natural selection and the philosophical argument itself. A few months ago I came across Stephen Law’s refutation of the EAAN, which was published in Analysis (a peer-reviewed academic journal of Philosophy). It’s not behind a paywall either. You can read it on his blog here. Law argues that natural selection favors true belief when one posits conceptual constraints, which if you think about really just seems obvious. Naturalism combined with evolution is not self-defeating. We have blind spots, to be sure. But we are not completely blind. And we have developed tools like the scientific method and those tools “work”. They’ve had a lot better track record of advancing the species and making verifiable predictions and observations about reality than any superstitious mumbo jumbo ever has.

[florduh]

...my objective is refuting arguments that suggest it is unreasonable to believe the Biblical accounts are true.

 

No arguments whatsoever are needed to refute your claims. The responsibility for proof lies with those who put forth an extraordinary claim such as you have. 

 

Since you can't or won't understand this, where can we now go? As long as you continue to say, "invisible beings are doing magic because it says so in my book and you can't prove I'm wrong" we shall continue to ask what evidence leads you to believe that it's literally true and not just a story. There can be no end to this cycle if left to run unchecked. Any suggestions?