tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post5945335278298772696..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: The Gap for GodMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-59301917292771979522013-08-12T11:51:18.915-07:002013-08-12T11:51:18.915-07:00Nahru,
I don't understand what reward is due s...Nahru,<br />I don't understand what reward is due someone for believing something without good evidence. Also, for much of the prescientific age the overwhelming majority of people in the western world did believe in God. Also most believers believe because of parents' and community infuluences. Reward for believing in these circumstances seems silly. Also, to get the whole game started need to believe in God, why leave playing the game an option? Again most people don't choose to believe or not.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13310234293587418486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-20914748639521804512013-03-17T11:26:42.882-07:002013-03-17T11:26:42.882-07:00(CONTINUING FROM MY PREVIOUS POST)
One possible e...(CONTINUING FROM MY PREVIOUS POST)<br /><br />One possible explanation would be that God wants to "gift" (give) a reward for believing in Him. Because, why would he provide His gifts to people, if He would make His existence obvious, and because of that everyone would "know" (not believe) that He exists. There would be nobody who wouldn't know Him, and thus, everybody would be equal. So how could He than differentiate between people, and give to some more, while to some less, of His gifts, based only on the part regarding His existence (there are other parts, of course, like doing good deeds and whatnot). (by "gift" I mean a variety of things, such as Heaven, peace, pleasures, integrity...)<br /><br />My point is, if everybody knew that He exists, than nobody could be given more, or less, of His gifts based only on that variable (knowledge of His existence). And there is a religion in which it's stated that "no one who believes in God will burn in hell" (I quote, but perhaps I shouldn't as I'm typing this from my memory; nonetheless I know that there is a part where it's meant like that). So, if everybody would know of God's existence, than nobody would burn in hell. This means that today's believers and nonbelievers, regarding the same religion, would be the same, so believers wouldn't be given any advantage over the nonbelievers for their belief. It is of importance to note that a nonbeliever can, of course, be a more useful, helpful member of a society than a believer. But belief itself, it would seem, carries great weight, and is the first thing that God commands. Everything else comes afterwards.<br /><br />In short, if there would be obvious evidence of God's existence, than there wouldn't be necessity to "believe" in Him, everyone would know. And God wishes not to make His existence obvious, for whatever reasons, so that He could reward those who believe, in spite of weak and/or small number of evidence. Belief itself is among things that counts as "good deeds", not only how one lives, or does one commits "good" or "bad" physical deeds. Thus, asking for clear evidence of His existence is practically asking not to believe, if you understand me. And belief, as I've said, is something that matters to God.<br /><br />I don't know if I should mention this or not, or if it even matters to anyone, but... err, no I won't yet say in which God I believe. It's not a secret or anything, and yes, it's only one God.<br /><br />I shall stop here. Have a nice day.<br /><br />Edit: wait, I have to post 2 times, because this post is too large? ZOMG!Nahruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13538236112085886632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-33140360413809518662013-03-17T11:25:34.632-07:002013-03-17T11:25:34.632-07:00Hi.
I know it's quite late, and I may be writ...Hi.<br /><br />I know it's quite late, and I may be writing in vain (from a certain point of view), but I've nonetheless decided to share my thought about this. So, here it goes...<br /><br />It would seem that the content of your article/post doesn't differentiate between two terms, one of them "to believe" and the other one "to know". Because, according to a definition of the verb "to believe" (via Wiktionary.org), it means, among other things, <i>"To think something is true without having proof or empirical evidence."</i><br /><br />As you've already answered, yes, the God could have made his existence utterly obvious, as obvious as the existence of Sun, or as obvious that we're breathing the air, and countless other examples. Also, yes, the evidence about His existence, which he provided us (let us for now suppose that there is evidence, and that God did provide us with a at least some evidence of his existence), is far from what He should be capable of. If He is the creator of the universe and everything within and beyond it (if there's something beyond universe, and if there is such a thing as "beyond" universe), then He should, without doubt, be capable of producing better evidence for His existence.<br /><br />But why did He not do that, now that's the problem isn't it? Why did He not make His existence so obvious, so that nobody, with reason, would possibly even think about doubting His existence? What is there to hide?<br /><br />The answer, of course, is not an easy one, and I won't pretend that I'm here to give an answer. I'm just as intrigued by these things as you are, and wan't to know the truth, whatever the truth might be, and whatever it might mean. So, I'm here just to give another perspective on looking at the problem.<br /><br />(SEE MY SECOND POST FOR CONTINUATION)Nahruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13538236112085886632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-45521543412883932302013-02-20T12:24:05.536-08:002013-02-20T12:24:05.536-08:00Ron, you said, "The strongest possible eviden...Ron, you said, "The strongest possible evidence for the resurrection is the apostles, whose lives showed they had first hand knowledge Jesus was alive." <br /><br />What evidence do you have that the stories about the apostles are accurate? Do you have any original first-hand statements from them? Any corroboration from Romans, Jews, or other Pagans? I don't think so. How do you know the stories aren't just myths? <br /><br />Supposing the apostles were real people, how do you know they didn't simply have visions (dreams and/or hallucinations) of a risen Jesus? After all, belief in rising gods was common at the time. The Romans said the same thing about their emperors. Justin Martyr admits as much and fails to offer any evidence that Christianity's case is any stronger.<br /><br />Furthermore, strength of conviction does not equal truth. Otherwise, why not become Buddhists? After all, a number of them have burned themselves to death for their beliefs. Why not become Muslims or Mormons? After all, many of them have died for their beliefs too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-53018303718360444552013-02-19T10:58:28.787-08:002013-02-19T10:58:28.787-08:00That would be cool :) I'll see if I can put so...That would be cool :) I'll see if I can put something together that is both interesting and deserving.<br /><br />Bayes theorem, I think, can be very satisfying and useful here because (1) its a formal, logically sound expression of how atheists already intuitively process the theistic debate; and (2) it properly frames the debate, demonstrating that we are really arguing over just three statements of probability [e.g. (i)the "prior" probability of a hypothesis being true against our background knowledge; (ii) the "consequent" probability of the existing evidence if the hypothesis were true; and (iii) the consequent probability of the existing evidence if the hypothesis were false]; and so it moves the argument away from the intuitive realm and into the logical realm, promising to give some conclusions which stick and cannot be evaded (at least not if the Believer wants to claim his faith to be reasonable!). Brad Lencionihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02453894833441267961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-27580816950264214262013-02-18T23:36:50.560-08:002013-02-18T23:36:50.560-08:00Nice Brad. Write this up with a little more expla...Nice Brad. Write this up with a little more explanation and we'll make it a guest post on the blog proper. <br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-4294269030469932522013-02-18T21:35:42.465-08:002013-02-18T21:35:42.465-08:00I was impressed by this post and have been mulling...I was impressed by this post and have been mulling it, as well as the subsequent discussions it sparked in the message board, over in the back of my head; and I have since determined that the logical framework of Bayes theorem would greatly clarify things, as it is precisely the tool for calculating the degree of belief warranted of any given hypothesis. <br /><br />Bayes theorem is: P(h | e & b) = P(h | b) x P (e | h & b)/ [P(h |b) x P(e | h &b) + P(~h | b) x P(e |~h & b)<br /><br />In Bayesian logic, the primary focus of your argument, McCormick, can properly be seen as one for determining the value of the positive consequent statement under the hypothesis that the Christian God exists (i.e. the likelihood of the existing evidence if the given hypothesis is true: P(e | h & b)); the argument convincingly points out that the existing evidence is not at all what the hypothesis predicts; i.e. P(e | h & b) → 0.<br /><br />Furthermore, you point out that the evidence is far better explained by an alternate hypothesis, which is what the negative consequent measures in Bayes theorem; i.e. P(e | ~h & b) → 1.<br /><br />However, before we can conclude that the atheist is warranted in his unbelief, we must determine the prior (i.e. the probability of the hypothesis on our background knowledge of the world: P(h | b); in this case, this number is measured according to the likelihood of superstitious, prescientific folk theories being true: which is highly unlikely; i.e. P(h|b) → 0.<br /><br />When we plug these results into Bayes equation: the probability of the Christian theistic hypothesis being true is approximately = .000001 x .000001/ (.000001 x .000001) + (.99999 x .99999) = a tiny fraction of 1%.<br /><br />Furthermore, Bayes theorem tells us what is wrong with Ron Cram’s endless frustrating rebuttals: First, it tells us precisely how much evidence is enough; it is that amount which produces a posterior probability of at least more than 50% for an objective observer (given the problem of evil, though, it more realistically should be over 90%). Also, Ron’s ad hoc rationalizations, which he intends to improve the positive consequent value which this post attacks, actually only hurts his case. Because they complicate his hypothesis, lowering its prior, and require even more evidence as a result which he cannot produce (because they consist of mere speculation).<br /><br />Slam Dunk! :)Brad Lencionihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02453894833441267961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-13186944752603513182013-01-16T15:37:35.323-08:002013-01-16T15:37:35.323-08:00typo >> believe <<typo >> believe <<Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182479498274235902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-86944565041114616902013-01-16T15:28:19.177-08:002013-01-16T15:28:19.177-08:00Ron,
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
Any 5th ...Ron,<br /><br />Are you smarter than a 5th grader?<br /><br />Any 5th grader can copy and paste.<br /><br />If you want someone to follow a link, use HTML tags..<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/humanism-for-children/2012/12/10/624efd8c-42e9-11e2-9648-a2c323a991d6_blog.html" rel="nofollow"> WL Craig</a><br /><br />And you want us to beleive that you are capable of writing a booklet for college students and professors! <br /><br />I am not impressed.<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182479498274235902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-7778760469241949872013-01-16T14:18:03.265-08:002013-01-16T14:18:03.265-08:00Matt,
This is off topic but I just read a rather ...Matt,<br /><br />This is off topic but I just read a rather interesting op-ed piece in the Washington Post published about a month ago. It is by William Lane Craig. <br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/humanism-for-children/2012/12/10/624efd8c-42e9-11e2-9648-a2c323a991d6_blog.html<br /><br />I was surprised to see the claim by Quentin Smith regarding the rise of theists in philosophy departments since the 1960s. As a Christian, I find the claim encouraging even if it is surprising. I am certain the percentage of theists in physics departments is far greater than the percentage in philosophy departments, but it is nice to hear of the increase among philosophers. <br /><br />Would you be willing to comment on Craig's view that the humanist is obliged to defeat both the nihilist and theist viewpoints? Ron Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-62526984111650604932013-01-12T06:21:41.866-08:002013-01-12T06:21:41.866-08:00Bob,
The intended audience are students and facul...Bob,<br /><br />The intended audience are students and faculty of colleges and universities. Step one is simply informing them of the level of evidence for extreme fine-tuning and the interconnectedness of the various parameters. Suffice it to say that this is not well understood. Ron Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-49379171003455666532013-01-12T06:09:46.465-08:002013-01-12T06:09:46.465-08:00Matt,
The charge of sharpshooter fallacy is an in...Matt,<br /><br />The charge of sharpshooter fallacy is an interesting one. Typically sharpshooter is claimed when one wants to point out that correlation is not causation. But causation is exactly what the evidence is describing. If the strength of the strong nuclear force was off just a little bit... or the strength of the electroweak force was just a little different... the universe as we know it would cease to exist. <br /><br />Please explain to me how the sharpshooter fallacy applies to these observations.Ron Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-44764901219636021272013-01-11T22:50:47.285-08:002013-01-11T22:50:47.285-08:00Ron,
I can respect no brag, just the facts.
Dr. ...Ron,<br /><br />I can respect no brag, just the facts.<br /><br />Dr. Matt is correct. There is difference between accuracy and precision.<br /><br /> I don’t know who your booklet’s intended audience is, but if its target is for the engineering or scientic community that is atheistic in nature, you have a huge mountain to climb. <br /><br />As a design engineer with 32 years experience, and a hobby of SCCA road racing for 12 years, I understand fine tuning. Off the top of my head, there are major obstacles that you have to over come. For instance, 1) proving that the non-contingency grounding of contingency is conscious. 2) proving the ontological gap 3) proving the analogy of a machine and the fallacy of composition 4)showing an objective design that is tuned and fail safe 5)showing the steps from tuned to fine tuned. <br /><br />Calling Dr. Stenger’s book and writings laughable is just plain arrogant. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182479498274235902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-15699610178372144272013-01-11T18:35:01.989-08:002013-01-11T18:35:01.989-08:00Sharpshooter fallacy. Sharpshooter fallacy. Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-74067587619581194072013-01-11T14:27:16.127-08:002013-01-11T14:27:16.127-08:00Bob,
Regarding the extreme fine tuning of the uni...Bob,<br /><br />Regarding the extreme fine tuning of the universe, I cannot provide the evidence here but I can quickly describe it. <br /><br />Brian Greene did a wonderful TV show for NOVA seen on PBS titled The Elegant Universe. You can buy the DVD or possible borrow it from your local library. On Disc 1 Part 2 Scene 8, he stands in front of a "universe machine" with 20 big dials and explains the universe can exist if each dial is set to precisely the right number. Screw one of them up just a little and the stars go out. <br /><br />It's a great illustration only the extreme fine-tuning exists on every scale - universe, galaxy clusters, galaxies, planetary systems, planet earth, ecosystem. And we now know there are than 20 constants that need to be fine tuned. On average, each of the scales (universe, galaxy clusters, etc) have about 100 known constant and ratios which are fine-tuned. <br /><br />Very few people grasp the level of evidence for fine-tuning. When you see a book like Victor Stenger's claiming the universe is not fine-tuned, well, it's just laughable. When Stenger claims if one dial is off, you can make up for it by adjusting another dial - well, that doesn't work because it will throw another ratio out of whack. The interconnectedness of the fine-tuning is just amazing. Ron Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-22427578637966552972013-01-11T14:10:45.822-08:002013-01-11T14:10:45.822-08:00Bob,
I don't like to talk about my qualificat...Bob,<br /><br />I don't like to talk about my qualifications. That doesn't mean I don't have a formal education. I do. But the point is that either my evidence and logic stand up to scrutiny or they do not. Telling you which degrees I hold and which private colleges and universities I attended is beside the point. <br /><br />You write: "You keep refering to the Talmud. All reference in the NT to the Hebrew text would be taken from the Greek translation, the Septuagint."<br /><br />Actually, the Talmud is highly respected (second only to the Old Testament for Jewish people) collection of ancient Rabbinic writings based on Jewish oral tradition. The Talmud consists of the Mishnah and the Gemara. The portions about Jesus date back to the first century. The Talmud has nothing to do with the New Testament (except they both mention Jesus). The Talmud views Jesus has a heretic who used sorcery to perform his miracles. The fact the Talmud does not deny the miracles is very telling. Instead of denying them, it attempts to explain them away by sorcery (which is the exact argument the Jews used in the New Testament). So this is good evidence the Talmud accurately the events around Jesus. <br />Ron Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-88391380422193126432013-01-11T12:48:29.246-08:002013-01-11T12:48:29.246-08:00Ron,
We all accept there is some evidence. Is the...Ron,<br /><br />We all accept there is some evidence. Is the evidence sufficient, maybe. As you acknowledged, the evidence is dubitable and impeachable. If there was at least one historical Jesus then there were many historical Jesuses. There is nothing in the legend that would exclude the ideas of several Jesuses. You keep refering to the Talmud. All reference in the NT to the Hebrew text would be taken from the Greek translation, the Septuagint. The only argument for a singalur Jesus and not many Jesuses to be the Christian Messiah is the monotheism of Judaism.<br /><br />My 11 year old granddaughter can copy and paste from Wikipedia. My 15 year old grandson has written a webpage entirely in html. <br /><br />Every engineer and scienctist that I worked with could write scripts (Perl, Java, Unix shell), that is the nature of their jobs. Most of them had to report findings and data, and that was usually on an intranet and writing some html. <br /><br />You are claiming to be writing a booklet on the fine tuning of the universe. I am skeptical of your qualifications, why should I take you seriously.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182479498274235902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-18445457013328692792013-01-11T10:05:31.316-08:002013-01-11T10:05:31.316-08:00continuation
Lucien witing between 150-180 AD. A...continuation<br /><br />Lucien witing between 150-180 AD. Again, there are zero Christian interpolations as the passages are not complimentary to Christians.<br /><a rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucian_on_Jesus</a><br /><br />Thallus is another ancient historian believed to have written in the first century AD. He would be the earliest non-Christian historian to write about Jesus. Unfortunately, his manuscript is not available. We have several ancient historians who mention his work.<br /><a rel="nofollow">http://christianthinktank.com/jrthal.html</a><br /><br />Josephus. Jesus is mentioned several times in Josephus but there is also strong evidence of Christian interpolations in some of the mentions. Scholars agree the James passage is genuine with no Christian interpolations. The fact Josephus says Jesus is "called the Christ" does not mean he has trusted Christ but it accurately reports that others call him as the Christ.<br /><a rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#The_James_Passage_2</a> <br /><br />Are there people who doubt the usefulness of certain of these witnesses? Of course. But the preponderance of evidence is clearly on the historicity of Jesus, on his death by crucifixion ("the extreme penalty") and his resurrection.Ron Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-50949780596265447672013-01-11T10:04:46.669-08:002013-01-11T10:04:46.669-08:00Bob,
So the lack of html tags is your excuse for ...Bob,<br /><br />So the lack of html tags is your excuse for not following the evidence? I didn't know. Here you go:<br /><br />The strongest evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is the changed lives of the apostles. They were willing to suffer persecution, deprivation and even death because they would not stop talking about their friend who rose from the dead. Evidence for this persecution is everywhere - throughout the New Testament, the Talmud and in the writings of Roman historians. No one doubts the early Christians suffered persecution. <br /><br />Martyrdom of St Paul<br /><a rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Arrest_and_death</a><br /><br />Martyrdom of St Peter<br /><a rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Peter#Martyrdom</a><br /><br />But there is also strong manuscript evidence for the<br />historicity of Jesus and his miracles based non-Biblical manuscripts:<br /><br />The Talmud called the miracles of Jesus sorcery. In the New Testament the Jews claimed Jesus did his miracles by Beelzebub which is exactly the same time. No Christian interpolations because the Jews always did their own copying.<br /><br />"Eddy and Boyd, who question the value of several of the Talmudic references state that the significance of the Talmud to historical Jesus research is that it never denies the existence of Jesus, but accuses him of sorcery, thus indirectly confirming his existence.[46] R. T. France and separately Edgar V. McKnight state that the divergence of the Talmud statements from the Christian accounts and their negative nature indicate that they are about a person who existed.[187][188] Craig Blomberg states that the denial of the existence of Jesus was never part of the Jewish tradition, which instead accused him of being a sorcerer and magician, as also reflected in other sources such as Celsus.[45] Andreas Kostenberger states that the overall conclusion that can be drawn from the references in the Talmud is that Jesus was a historical person whose existence was never denied by the Jewish tradition, which instead focused on discrediting him.[47]"<br /><a rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#The_Talmud</a><br /><br />Tacitus is also helpful. There are no Christian interpolations as the passages are clearly not complimentary to Jesus.<br /><br />"Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to be genuine and of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[5][6][7][41]<br />Van Voorst states that "of all Roman writers, Tacitus gives us the most precise information about Christ".[40] John Dominic Crossan considers the passage important in establishing that Jesus existed and was crucified, and states: "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."[52]"<br /><a rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus</a><br /><br />Pliny the Younger writing to Emperor Trajan sometime between 98-117 AD. Again, no possible Christian interpolations and no question that Christians were dying for their faith in Christ and his resurrection.<br /><a rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger#Epistle_concerning_the_Christian_Religion</a><br /><br />to be continuedRon Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-60732893326853998472013-01-09T21:05:04.572-08:002013-01-09T21:05:04.572-08:00Ron,
Dr. Matt has probably taught at least 15 ter...Ron,<br /><br />Dr. Matt has probably taught at least 15 terms of Philosophy of Religion. If you look at his syllabus for last term he has given up on a textbook per se because he knows the subject matter so well. It is condescending almost to the point of ad hominem to suggest that he does not understand the evidence. He has published a book that has been excepted by the community of his peers. <br /><br />As a lowly student of philosophy with an emphasize on religion, I have read Plato (Socrates), Aristotle, Augustine, Boethius Anslem, Aquinas along with James, Taylor, Pascal, Wolterstorff, Wittgensein, Moore and even the pseudoscience of W. L. Craig just to mention a few names that are on the Western tradition of Christian Theology. It is condescending to suggest that I have not or will not consider what ever evidence or writings that are available. <br /><br />We would not be considered philosophers or students of philosophy if in fact we did not take an analytical approach to the question of “Does God exists”. Any philosopher or student who is to be taken seriously will willingly with an open mind consider a legitimate argument or defense of Christianity. <br /><br />In addition, atheist are well educated in historical/textual criticism and exegesis of the Bible. The philosopher does not approach the Bible with a devotional position as you do. The philosopher does not make the assumation that God exists. Bart Ehrman is well known in our community. Paul Tobin’s excellent volume, <i>The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager</i> is well researched (over 1500 citations), is considered authoritative, and is part of literature. <br /><br />Positing to this site with an attitude of I know more than you do, and you don’t know what you are talking about, is arrogant and egotistical.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182479498274235902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-84725681131091603112013-01-09T17:10:34.278-08:002013-01-09T17:10:34.278-08:00Thanks, Ron.
A intelligent internet user, who wan...Thanks, Ron.<br /><br />A intelligent internet user, who wants someone to follow URL links would learn how to use HTML tags!<br /><br />I am willing to read anything that can be considered reputable, for instance Stenger, Krauss, and Feynman. I have read for instance, Strobel and Flew as an atheist.<br /><br /> The evidence has also convinced Dan Barker, John Lofuts and Gary Lenaire to leave the faith. Touche’!<br /><br />You recommending books to read is a copout. I could recommend that you read Everitt, Rowe, Martin, Gale and McCormick. I have read them and as a student of philosophy have formed my own arguments and are willing to post them. <br /><br />It is the responsibility of the person who is asserting a claim to provide the supporting evidence or arguments. You can not shift that responsibility. You asserted “God is internally consistent logically.” It is your responsibility to defend that claim. In philosophy such statements get you a big fat F. In philosophy it is required to posit a thesis statement, “The puropse of this posting is to argue in favor of the Logically interally consistency of a Christian God.” Then there better be something of substance, not just a some sort of language game, that follows.<br /><br />It should be obvious, that Dr. Matt, et al on this thread, have study the evidence in great detail. If there was any ground breaking, earth shattering new evidence in the world we would know about and certaintly entertain studying it. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182479498274235902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-51181813726952971212013-01-09T15:45:54.275-08:002013-01-09T15:45:54.275-08:00Bob,
I should address a couple of your other comm...Bob,<br /><br />I should address a couple of your other comments. You write:<br /><br />"You have blatantly rejected deductive proofs and disproof’s."<br /><br />I do not reject all deductive logic. I do reject deductive proofs and disproofs because the history of philosophy clearly shows that none of them work.<br /><br />You also write:<br /><br />"Your just in time evidence, is just sufficient to convince a believer that they are not insane."<br /><br />Not true. The evidence I have brought forward is some of the evidence that has persuaded brilliant atheists like Francis Collins, Lee Strobel, Allan Sandage and Anthony Flew that God exists. <br /><br />Ron Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-24659807534362599882013-01-09T15:39:59.242-08:002013-01-09T15:39:59.242-08:00Bob,
I think the burden of proof is on those who ...Bob,<br /><br />I think the burden of proof is on those who claim the Christian God is inconsistent logically. The challenge anyone wishes to prove inconsistency or incompatibility is they first have to understand the Christian God. I would recommend to you the fine book Knowing God by J.I. Packer. <br /><br />Most people will be more interested in the question of evidence, scientific and historical, to support the existence of God. As I mentioned earlier, I have started writing a booklet with the working title "Does science prove God exists?" When I finish the booklet, I will be happen to send you one free of charge if you promise me you will read it. So far, I cannot tell you have read any of the links I have provided so far. <br /><br />Bob, are you willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads?Ron Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-32729736618415726782013-01-09T12:51:27.976-08:002013-01-09T12:51:27.976-08:00Ron,
Good response, but not very compelling.
Log...Ron, <br /><br />Good response, but not very compelling.<br /><i>Logic:</i> The study of correct reasoning. The right way and the wrong way to argue. The study of the structures of arguments that guarantees correct or true conclusions from correct or true premises.<br /><i>Deductive:</i> attempts to prove the truth of its conclusion with certainty. In a valid deductive argument with all true premises, the truth of the conclusion is necessary and its falsehood is impossible [Certain, Valid and Sound]<br /><br /><b> You have blatantly rejected deductive proofs and disproof’s. </b><br /><br /><i>Inductive:</i> attempts to establish its conclusion with some degree of probability. In a strong inductive argument with all true premises, the truth of the conclusion is merely probable and its falsehood merely improbable. Arguments are weak to strong. A posteriori considerations depend on their probability and on their respective explanatory power therefore they are not conclusive evidence.<br /><br /><b> Your just in time evidence, is just sufficient to convince a believer that they are not insane.</b><br /><br /> <i>Propositions or Statements:</i> expressed by a declarative sentence and takes a truth value. A proposition is something that can be asserted or denied (T or F).<br /><br />Based on the above vocabulary provide an argument that it is highly probably, say > .9 that “The concept of the Christian God is internally consistent <b>logically.</b>”<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182479498274235902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-2629743001278210332013-01-09T10:24:19.333-08:002013-01-09T10:24:19.333-08:00Bob,
To say the concept of God is meaningless is...Bob, <br /><br />To say the concept of God is meaningless is patently false. There are many concepts of God, each competing in the open marketplace of ideas. The concept of the Christian God is not only consistent logically, it has significant historical support from evidence relating to both the Old Testament and the New Testament. I have provided numerous links to some of this evidence on this page. <br /><br />You ask why a god believed to have ontological perfection would have needs and wants. And you want to know how an omni-god can have personal attributes. My reply is that the concept of the Christian God is internally consistent logically.. If you have in your mind some philosophical construct of what God should be like, then you will most likely be led astray. <br /><br />here is the Christian answer. God, even though he is spirit and omnipresent, is also a personal God. This means he has a personality. He has likes and dislikes. The Bible tells us God created man in his image. So, we should not be surprised when we see some similarities between us and God. We are not going to become gods ever as some religions teach, but God did create us as intelligent, communicative and creative beings. Artists like to express themselves in their art. God likes to express his creativity also, but he has a much larger canvas. There is no inconsistency within the nature of God.<br /><br />Regarding Zeus and Horus, these are both mythologies. They have no basis in historical fact. Jesus does. You cannot get around the manuscript evidence, especially in the Talmud. <br /><br />Regarding the historicity of the Bible, there is a track record. The Bible has come through time and time again. Did you happen to read the article in US News that I linked? If not, how can you comment on the historicity of the Bible if you are not willing to examine the evidence?Ron Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.com