By Which Do We Evaluate?

[Hierophant]

As I indicated in some other posts, I often wonder if I am perhaps missing some pieces to this puzzle that would explain my doubts and perhaps lead me back into some form of Christianity. I was speaking with a colleague the other day who used to be a Christian and he said trying to understand Christianity was likened to a million piece puzzle that only had 700,000 pieces provided. When I say Christianity, I am defining it at a macro level, just the basics that most Christians would agree to.

 

Something that occurred to me when I was really in it, but I had forgotten about, was my ability to evaluate the evidence presented. What I mean by this, is what tools do I really have to evaluate what is presented to me? Ultimately, that is the game each individual is playing, "Do you have the ability to discern truth from fiction?"

 

This is something I really struggle with. Being quite honest, I have to say, I simply do not know how to evaluate evidence from a historical standpoint. There is probably some scientific terminology for this, but I am not familiar with it.  I am open to the idea of God and religion, in whatever form it is, so long as it is the truth. To dismiss it offhandedly from the get go seems unwise. So for the sake of trying to understand what may be, I am willing to leave it on the table as possible. 

 

Knowing myself, I am not one to get married to an idea that I myself do not know to be true. Using an example, when it comes to history, I am okay with loosely agreeing with what historians say, but I am not committed to what they say, because ultimately, history is an exercise of what may have happened. I do not know the guys who wrote about Alexander the Great, I do not know what kind of academic honesty historians took to uncover the ideas they came to. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time, there is nothing on the line if they are wrong. Maybe Alexander the Great was a total myth; not saying he was, but for the sake of the argument, lets say he was....well, then so what. Nobody is really affected by it, nobody is going to lose their life over it (I hope not at least). At the end of the day, if we got most of history wrong, then I am not inclined to say it has real-time application to my life (perhaps others would if that was their profession, but I am not tying to go that route right now). In general, I do not feel as if I have to take some hard line stance on things that nobody can be absolutely positive about.

 

This is a bit different if we are talking about things that can be shown to be true, or things that happen to have real-world consequences in the now/future. I know 2 + 2 = 4, no need to mull that over too long. I can put two different sets of objects together, where their total sum is four; easy enough. I know this to be true in my world that I can experience (I am not talking about some other universe or somewhere physics break down). When it comes to ideas or areas where I cannot be personally sure, I suppose I am inclined to have some incredulity. It may not be much, but it is there just in case.

 

When it comes to making a "decision for Christ" as it were, this is something I find very difficult to do. I am being asked to make a hard commitment to something I am not sure to be true. I, nor anyone else, can possibly validate what exactly happened throughout the OT and NT, nor what it really means. All I have for evidence is my personal experiences, a 2000+ year old book, and church tradition. When dealing with a historical claim of this nature, how can one be sure they have actually come to the correct assessment. In many ways, I find compelling arguments on both sides. I have a direct example to use.

 

David Wallace is a NT academic over at Dallas Theological Seminary. He writes books and articles debunking what atheist and seculars (is that a word?) have to say about the Bible, Jesus, God. Then you have someone like Bart Ehrman who will go another route to poke some holes in the gospels and string together different arguments to show that the Bible is not what fundamentalist make it out to be.

 

Here we are, two different experts talking about the same thing, and coming to vastly different conclusions. Either side is possibly right. Now we come to the question, by which can I evaluate what is right? What tools do I really have to make a decision on who has come to the right conclusion. Neither side can really demonstrate to be true because they are both based off of historical analysis. There are so many layers involved in that process, how can you possibly uncover the reality either way?

 

Everyone here was either a believer or is one now, and while wading through Christianity, you have the problem of trying to evaluate which Christian denomination got it right. How do you evaluate what God actually expects you to believe and do. How do you actually know what the author of a gospel or epistle meant without being able to ask follow-up questions. To me there seems to be one ambiguity after another. Verse X could be seen this way, or it could be that way, or it could tie into this bigger theological idea.

 

When it is all said and done, I am just not sure I am wired to make such an evaluation, nor do I understand why that is required of me. For the sake of the argument, say Christianity is true, why am I being asked to make a decision for which I do not really believe I am equipped to make. The only thing I can think of right now is my personal experience with the world. If I do that, I could definitely see the possibility of a outside agency creating the world, that does not seem to be too much of a stretch. Past that, I am not sure how many other things I could infer. I could infer that this being may have some kind of duality. For life there is death, for love there is hate, for mercy there is bloodshed. Whether or not that meant there was only one outside agency or many, I could not come to a conclusion based on my observations.

 

Other than my personal observations of the natural world, I can say my personal experience with Christianity was absolutely unpleasant. I was constantly stressed I was not believing things, doing the right things, or living in accordance with what Jesus wanted. I was plagued with anxiety and depression. I started to have intrusive thoughts not long after I converted and this, coupled with the constant back and forth broke me down mentally. That is really why I started to back off from being fully committed, to just wondering if there is any truth to it. This ties into what I said earlier, I had trouble evaluating what Christianity actually looks like, and no pastor I talked to really knew. Their ambiguous answers always drove me nuts. There are so many ideas, I never felt prepared to make an evaluation without wondering if I may be wrong and I end up doing the wrong thing. I will be honest, there were some ideas floating around I did not want to be true so I would find ways to work around my cognitive bias. For example, the idea that secular music was inherently sinful always seemed strange and I could never get on board with it. Or how some groups would say that people are sinning when they unknowingly participate in something that may be construed as anti-God. Give an example, a charismatic author on some website said that the halftime show of the last Super Bowl was pro gay, and therefore half a million people celebrated a pro gay agenda whether they knew it or not. I do not know, I think that is a stretch that borders on paranoia. Not speaking to the specific example I just provided, but in general, surely intent counts for something.

 

Something I always see when a Christian is arguing with a nonbeliever is a statement along these lines: "One day you will die and what will you say when you are face to face with Jesus and then you will know what the truth is?" Actually, if that is the case, I would rather get that face to face interaction now so we can forgo the charades. People often want to know exactly what it would take for an atheist or agnostic to believe, presupposing these groups do not have good reason for what they believe already. I know I personally have an answer, I just want one hour of God's time to tell me what the truth is, how to live out that truth, and to help me understand the truth. That is it, that is the only thing I would ask, then God and I would have no issues moving forward. He completely explained what to believe, how to live, and helped me understand doctrines that I personally could not wrap my mind around - such as eternal hell, if indeed that was the scenario we were dealing with, or why sacrificing his Wisdom/Logos was necessary to forgive people. After all that, then any failure is a failure on my part for not doing exactly what I know I should be doing. Wouldn't it be nice if God was handing out progress reports. That would be a great way to let everyone know how they were doing and where they need to pick it up. And I wish that everyone would be given the same opportunity, that to me, is absolutely fair.

 

I am curious to hear from others. By which ways do you believe you are able to discern what the truth is?

 

On a side note, I do not accept the Holy Spirit is "teaching me" argument. Too many people are saying this and coming to vastly different ideas on big issues. Even if this is the case, who the Holy Spirit is actually talking to is unknown and yet something else we would have to have the ability to evaluate.

[Joshpantera]

9 hours ago, TinMan said:

Here we are, two different experts talking about the same thing, and coming to vastly different conclusions. Either side is possibly right. Now we come to the question, by which can I evaluate what is right? What tools do I really have to make a decision on who has come to the right conclusion. Neither side can really demonstrate to be true because they are both based off of historical analysis. There are so many layers involved in that process, how can you possibly uncover the reality either way?

 

Narrow this down a bit more. 

 

How is it even possible that Wallace could be true? He's speaking in terms of heavily biased, believer based assertions about the bible. Ehrman is simply an academic who's reading the black and white realities of what the evidence actually shows. The manuscripts varying one from another, the glaring intent of those writing and editing the manuscripts revealing the man made nature of said manuscripts. This isn't a situation where maybe Wallace is right. 

 

9 hours ago, TinMan said:

Something I always see when a Christian is arguing with a nonbeliever is a statement along these lines: "One day you will die and what will you say when you are face to face with Jesus and then you will know what the truth is?" Actually, if that is the case, I would rather get that face to face interaction now so we can forgo the charades.

 

Say Santa Claus instead of god. Look at what you're saying in that context. 

 

"One day you will be in the north pole and what will you say when you are face to face with Santa Claus, and then you will know what the truth is?" 

 

Yes, if Santa Claus were real it would be nice to just forgo the charade. But that's not reality. That's make believe. In the exact same way, god is likewise make believe and I say that with a lot of experience under my belt. I know the details packed behind such a bold statement. And it doesn't matter one bit if I technically can't say that I know god doesn't exist to 100% certainty, because neither can we say the same about Santa Claus. And yet, knowing that we can't rule out Santa Claus 100%, we nevertheless rule out Santa Claus, don't we? With a great deal of confidence because we know it's made up. It's obvious. 

 

God is an adult version of Santa Claus, bottom line...

 

9 hours ago, TinMan said:

People often want to know exactly what it would take for an atheist or agnostic to believe, presupposing these groups do not have good reason for what they believe already. I know I personally have an answer, I just want one hour of God's time to tell me what the truth is, how to live out that truth, and to help me understand the truth. That is it, that is the only thing I would ask, then God and I would have no issues moving forward. He completely explained what to believe, how to live, and helped me understand doctrines that I personally could not wrap my mind around - such as eternal hell, if indeed that was the scenario we were dealing with, or why sacrificing his Wisdom/Logos was necessary to forgive people. After all that, then any failure is a failure on my part for not doing exactly what I know I should be doing. Wouldn't it be nice if God was handing out progress reports. That would be a great way to let everyone know how they were doing and where they need to pick it up. And I wish that everyone would be given the same opportunity, that to me, is absolutely fair.

 

Again, Santa Claus. Wouldn't it be great to pick Santa's brain concerning the in and out's of his truth and the north pole? The Wisdom / Logos of discerning the naughty from nice? You're still in make believe land in your own mind, TinMan. 

 

One hour of Santa's time, that's all you need. 

 

Then you can walk next door to the Easter Bunny, stop in at Luke Skywalker's pad, and wave at Superman on you're way out of town. 

 

Go ahead and grab this thing by horns. This is what it is.... 

[mymistake]

20 hours ago, TinMan said:

I was speaking with a colleague the other day who used to be a Christian and he said trying to understand Christianity was likened to a million piece puzzle that only had 700,000 pieces provided.

 

That is seeing the leaves but missing the forest.  Once I became and atheist I found Christianity and the Bible are simple and easy to understand.  But that is because I look at the forest instead of the leaves.

 

 

20 hours ago, TinMan said:

Ultimately, that is the game each individual is playing, "Do you have the ability to discern truth from fiction?"

 

The scientific method is best.  We know this because science is useful and makes predictions.  Almost all of today's technology was unlocked through scientific discovery.  Meanwhile anti-scientific systems can only come up with excuses for why they don't work.

 

20 hours ago, TinMan said:

Using an example, when it comes to history, I am okay with loosely agreeing with what historians say, but I am not committed to what they say, because ultimately, history is an exercise of what may have happened.

 

I see history as using limited data to figure out what was most likely to have happened.  This is why we will never see gods or miracles in history.  A miracle is, by definition, the least likely thing to have happened.

 

 

20 hours ago, TinMan said:

All I have for evidence is my personal experiences, a 2000+ year old book, and church tradition.

 

When Christians ask for a commitment for Christ they are going to gain a follower but they ask you to do it based solely on emotional manipulation.  When we turn to evidence the track record of all religious people is fair game.  You should compare your personal experience with testimony from the followers of all religions.  From that it is easy to conclude that religious experience is common to all and is a function of human emotions.  The Bible is just one of the millions of religious texts that have been written.  Taking into consideration as many of them as you wish it is easy to see the pattern that religious texts must be mysterious in order to be popular and in that process of being mysterious they wind up being vague and contradictory.  Christian tradition must be looked at against the tradition of all other religions.  And then the pattern emerges that the enlightened one (usually male) puts on a show so that a population will give him money and sometimes this provides illicit opportunities for sex.

 

Christianity is like all the other religions.

 

20 hours ago, TinMan said:

This is a bit different if we are talking about things that can be shown to be true, or things that happen to have real-world consequences in the now/future. I know 2 + 2 = 4, no need to mull that over too long. I can put two different sets of objects together, where their total sum is four; easy enough.

 

Ah, but not if you use the same rules that apologists use to defend the concept of God.  You cannot know 2 + 2 = 4 beyond all doubt.  A wizard may have cast a spell on you to trick you.  But since there is no evidence of wizards or magic spells we dismiss such objections as not being reasonable.  So you can know 2 + 2 = 4 beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

 

20 hours ago, TinMan said:

David Wallace is a NT academic over at Dallas Theological Seminary. He writes books and articles debunking what atheist and seculars (is that a word?) have to say about the Bible, Jesus, God.

 

I have no idea who he is or what he wrote.  However I'm confident that I could take down any apologist at the rate of an hour per page.  It just isn't that hard.  Apologists always lose because they must build their arguments without a foundation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sdelsolray]

Knowing the "truth" is overrated.  Being able to say, "I don't know", coupled with a rational belief in the probability of something being true is more practical and obtainable, at least for most things.

 

Take your 2 + 2 = 4 for example.  In bases 5 or higher that is true.  In base 3, 2 + 2 = 11.  In base 4, 2 + 2 = 10.  So, 2 + 2 = 4 is not always true.  It depends on an assumption.  Mathematics is a human construct which contain a priori axioms/assumptions which define a limited rational space in which to operate.  It is an invention.

 

As to the probability of something being true, I suggest you study Bayesian Probability Theory and observe how you use it when you think about these things.

 

In addition, inventory your toolkit for critical thinking and how well you employ its tools.  Can you spot an informal logical fallacy when presented to you?  Do you know when you are using confirmation bias?  Or expectation bias?  Or an illusory correlation?  A critical thinking toolkit works well when (i) it has many tools in it and (ii) you can use them in real time (e.g., while a person is speaking, while you are reading something).

 

One other point.  Most theists were indoctrinated with particular religious dogma as a child and have been under peer pressure to accept that dogma.  This results in adherence to "religious faith", which is the antithesis of rational thinking.  I suggest you read The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture by Darrel Ray.

 

 

[Hierophant]

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Narrow this down a bit more. 

 

How is it even possible that Wallace could be true? He's speaking in terms of heavily biased, believer based assertions about the bible. Ehrman is simply an academic who's reading the black and white realities of what the evidence actually shows. The manuscripts varying one from another, the glaring intent of those writing and editing the manuscripts revealing the man made nature of said manuscripts. This isn't a situation where maybe Wallace is right.

 

You make valid points. I am still in the "what if I am wrong phase," and it unnerves me sometimes. I did not realize how far back and how deep this thought process is ingrained in me. It was in my background for so long, it seems to be a long way to go before I come to a place with better understanding.

 

When it comes to Wallace, you are absolutely right, he is completely biased. Ehrman may be just looking at the facts as well, but he may also have his own set of biases. I am not saying that discredits him, probably because his biases are not as strong and are not some party line to be maintained.

 

There are a few things in the Bible I have not been able to unravel yet. I do not know what to do with this idea of resurrection appearances, especially Paul, and as much as I believe in rational thought, those passages that read something along the lines of "God's wisdom makes the wise look foolish." It makes me stop and wonder if there is something to it. At the same time, I know that rational thought is all we have by which to make a judgement call. I am still wading through these issues and trying to make sense of them.

[Hierophant]

@mymistake

 

I agree most of the apologist arguments are weak, but since I am struggling with the idea that I could be wrong, I have a tendency to entertain what they say. I want to have the confidence that this is not real and my fears are irrational, I just have not gotten there yet and I am not exactly sure how to get there.

[Hierophant]

@sdelsolray

 

Thanks for the tips. I have heard of Bayesian Theory and will check out the book you recommended. As I mentioned in replies to the other two responses, some Bible quips keep me from fully engaging my rational mind. The whole "in their [human wisdom] they became foolish." It is this idea that you cannot trust yourself to make a wise decision. I had that mindset for so long I have not learned to trust my judgement again yet. This theme that humans are stupid and wicked is so replete in the Bible, and I was a believer for so long, I have been able to overcome it yet. Thanks again.

[mymistake]

1 hour ago, TinMan said:

 There are a few things in the Bible I have not been able to unravel yet. I do not know what to do with this idea of resurrection appearances, especially Paul, and as much as I believe in rational thought, those passages that read something along the lines of "God's wisdom makes the wise look foolish." It makes me stop and wonder if there is something to it. At the same time, I know that rational thought is all we have by which to make a judgement call. I am still wading through these issues and trying to make sense of them.

 

The simplest explanation for the resurrection appearance to Paul is that Paul lied.  He could have just made up a good story. 

 

However there could be another good explanation that covers a more generalized pattern.  The trend of the religious prophet has a correlation with the modern understanding of bi-polar mental illness.  Some people diagnosed with bi-polar can experience religious hallucinations or even religious paranoia while they are in the manic phase.  What they see might depend on what religious views they had as children.  

 

 

1 hour ago, TinMan said:

@mymistake

 

I agree most of the apologist arguments are weak, but since I am struggling with the idea that I could be wrong, I have a tendency to entertain what they say. I want to have the confidence that this is not real and my fears are irrational, I just have not gotten there yet and I am not exactly sure how to get there.

 

 

I could be wrong too.  However I want to know why I am wrong.  I've studied logical fallacies in an effort to avoid using them.  When I see an apologist build a house using fallacies as the bricks that makes me suspicious of them.  If I check the foundation of their argument and find nothing I dismiss their claim as wishful thinking.

 

Religious people have been working on apologetics for thousands of years and the best they can come up with is "well nobody knows for sure" or "you have to believe it first before you can know it" or "this is a matter of faith" or "I wouldn't want to live in a world where it wasn't true" or "It makes me happy" or "believe me or else you will be punished later".  Science has only been around for a few centuries and we already invented the internet and put people in space.

[Joshpantera]

On 2/24/2018 at 5:44 PM, TinMan said:

There are a few things in the Bible I have not been able to unravel yet. I do not know what to do with this idea of resurrection appearances, especially Paul, and as much as I believe in rational thought, those passages that read something along the lines of "God's wisdom makes the wise look foolish." It makes me stop and wonder if there is something to it. At the same time, I know that rational thought is all we have by which to make a judgement call. I am still wading through these issues and trying to make sense of them.

 

None of the resurrection claims hold any weight. There's absolutely nothing to compare the claims of the bible with against contemporary history. None of it. Not only no resurrection, but no Jesus of Nazareth noted by any contemporaries. That leaves only the bible as the only evidence to verify the claims of the bible. And some non-contemporary statements that appear long after the time in question. As for the claims in the bible, none of these are contemporary to the time in question either. They're anonymous letters assumed to have been written around the end of the first century. They appear into the historical record around the middle of the second century. There's nothing to tie these late claims to the period in question. 

 

Acts is something written after the Pauline Epistles in order to try and put a back story to them. 

 

So we have the so called authentic Pauline Epistles, then anonymous gospels written after words, to create a back story and in fill details of the myth, and with that Luke - Acts. 

 

Now after that had all been accomplished, the canon was fashioned in a linear progression, starting with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Acts and then Paul. This creates the appearance of a linear progression and historically accurate timeline of people and events, when that's not at all how any of this originated. 

 

When you analyze all of this from the perspective of textual criticism you'll find that the resurrection is completely untenable. And completely unlikely to begin with on top of that. Thirdly, it's a take off of similar pagan mythological motifs concerning death and resurrection of organic growth and the solar light cycle. By the time you know your way around something like the resurrection claims very well, this is Santa Claus. 

 

I'm telling you, there's no meat behind your second guessing this. Many experienced ex-C's have second guessed all of this and pushed through into deep waters. If you keep pushing along with the goal of sticking to what can be said is true, you'll further distance yourself from second guessing any of it, over time. 

[Hierophant]

9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Now after that had all been accomplished, the canon was fashioned in a linear progression, starting with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Acts and then Paul. This creates the appearance of linear progression and historically accurate timeline, when that's not at all how any of this originated.

 

You know, I never even considered this. The way these books are organized in the the Bible gives the impression of a chronological timeline. Good observation on that point!

[Joshpantera]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

 

So, of the gospels, Mark is supposed to have been the first written by popular understanding. Miracles and the resurrection are brief with Mark. As you can see, everything beyond Mark 16:8 is not present in the oldest manuscripts. But was being mentioned by around the latter part of the second century, in some cases. While in other cases some people well into the 5th century didn't seem to know of anything beyond Mark 16:8. Of course apologist's will try and rally for apologetic reasons for this, because they can not very well do anything else. They have to at least try and tow the party line in the face of adversity, regardless, with extreme bias.  

 

The remaining gospels evolve in both miracles and resurrection stories as they go along. 

 

Pauline Epistles (mid - late 1st century) > Gospels (late 1st century - late 2nd century) > Acts (back stories to fill in content towards the Pauline Epistles)

 

In Paul Jesus is so vague that it's been suggested that he was only thought of as a celestial being. Paul had no earthly contact with any Jesus of Nazareth. Whatever the case, it's clear that who ever Paul was, that person didn't know Jesus in a contemporary manner. There's really no value in Paul for trying to confirm the resurrection. And it only gets worse as you go along through time, getting further, and further from the supposed time and place that this is supposed to have happened. 

 

Wouldn't there be something better than this if the story was true and had any importance of being known beyond doubt by all of humanity? 

 

Think about that part too. Why would this major salvation of the world event take place with no contemporary witness whatsoever? Or at least with contemporary sources discussing it in either belief or disbelief? Isn't the point for this event to be known? 

 

The exact opposite is true, though. 

 

It's completely unknown until it was gradually made up, and then greatly expanded upon. 

 

Santa Claus....

[Hierophant]

@mymistake@Joshpantera

There is one apologist I wanted to comment on and hear your collective opinions on, and that is Glenn Miller who runs A Christian Think Tank. He is what I would call an above average apologist and uses a lot of source material to construct his arguments. That being said, I have read a few of his works that made me roll my eyes, but that being said, I am not sure I could defeat him in an argument, mostly because he is more well read than I am at the moment.

 

What do you think, do you find anything Miller puts out compelling or does he do a lot of bloviating about nothing?

[mymistake]

Never heard of him before.  Give me a few hours and I will dig something up.

 

Edit:

Is this a good example?

http://www.ldolphin.org/tanknote.html

 

A nice short essay.  He brings up five examples of trendy stuff and then concludes that God gave us just enough to believe if we really want to believe.

 

 

Or did you want something more like this:

http://christianthinktank.com/hgodrock.html

Where he makes claims about God's nature that can be tested against reality or against the Bible?

 

 

 

Edit again:

I think I hit the mother load.  He has a list of common objections.  This might take some time.

http://christianthinktank.com/objedex.html

 

 

Notice how he does not welcome feedback?  You know it's a house of cards if he won't allow the windows open for fear of the wind.

[Hierophant]

@mymistake

 

Any one of those will do. I read the first one, the one stating God gives us just enough evidence to find him if we so desire. I find it uncompelling. I tried finding God, I searched with all my might and asked that God would just please talk to me and tell me exactly what he wants me to believe and do....to no avail. Miller convinced me that there is just enough evidence to come to the conclusion(s) you want to come to, i.e., define God and the universe to a degree that sounds good to you.

[mymistake]

17 minutes ago, TinMan said:

@mymistake

 

Any one of those will do. I read the first one, the one stating God gives us just enough evidence to find him if we so desire. I find it uncompelling. I tried finding God, I searched with all my might and asked that God would just please talk to me and tell me exactly what he wants me to believe and do....to no avail. Miller convinced me that there is just enough evidence to come to the conclusion(s) you want to come to, i.e., define God and the universe to a degree that sounds good to you.

 

 

I started a new thread.  I'll just take it one page at a time whenever I feel like tearing into an apologist.

 

To address Miller's conclusion, if God didn't give us enough evidence to know but there were going to be thousands of false religions and false gods that would lead us astray then God must not give a damn about us.  God must know that millions of people will be tormented for all eternity in hell and God couldn't be bothered with giving us enough evidence to make a difference?  This paints the picture of a god who is evil or indifferent.  That makes the Christian claim that God loves us a lie.  (Unless there is no God at all, in which case we see exactly what we would expect with Christianity being just one more false religion of a false god.)

[Joshpantera]

15 hours ago, TinMan said:

@mymistake@Joshpantera

There is one apologist I wanted to comment on and hear your collective opinions on, and that is Glenn Miller who runs A Christian Think Tank. He is what I would call an above average apologist and uses a lot of source material to construct his arguments. That being said, I have read a few of his works that made me roll my eyes, but that being said, I am not sure I could defeat him in an argument, mostly because he is more well read than I am at the moment.

 

What do you think, do you find anything Miller puts out compelling or does he do a lot of bloviating about nothing?

 

I'm off to the Mountain's again this weekend. But I will read up on Miller when I get a chance. The thing is, I don't see any possible way that an apologist can ever come out on top. And that's because I'm aware of the very foundations of any possible apologetic's. That's because apologetic's rest on the bible and the foundation of the bible itself folds as of Genesis 1:1. And then continues to snow ball from there as it goes along. When you're familiar with these details, there's really nowhere that an apologist can go to over come these foundational problems and take the high ground away from their opponents. 

 

But nevertheless, I'll look into it and apply what I'm talking about above to the direction Miller has tried taking.