Ask a Christian philosopher a question

Archaeopteryx · Nov 25, 2015

Now it seems that you have reverted back to your old way of thinking, in which playing the "inner witness" card allows you to deflect such criticism and preserve your theological commitments in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary. This would suggest that you are not open to questioning the authorship of scripture, contrary to what you earlier claimed.

dms1972 · Nov 25, 2015

dms1972 · Nov 25, 2015

anonymous person · Nov 25, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
You'll have to elaborate further. Either you accept that you could be wrong about your theological commitments or you don't. Thus far you have indicated that you accept that possibility and that you would be willing to revise those commitments if presented with sufficient reasons to do so (1).

It would be helpful for you to study more in depth on the concept of properly basic belief and the concept of logical possibility. There are many aspects of the concept of subjunctive possibility. Logical, metaphysical, nomological, etc. Etc. Each are different and nuanced. Studying each in depth may help you understand more clearly and more precisely what all is entailed and what all is excluded from the specific subjunctive possibility of logical possibility.

Archaeopteryx · Nov 25, 2015

anonymous person said:
It would be helpful for you to study more in depth on the concept of properly basic belief and the concept of logical possibility. There are many aspects of the concept of subjunctive possibility. Logical, metaphysical, nomological, etc. Etc. Each are different and nuanced. Studying each in depth may help you understand more clearly and more precisely what all is entailed and what all is excluded from the specific subjunctive possibility of logical possibility.

It would be helpful if you would answer the questions put to you, rather than being evasive, which is the norm for you.

anonymous person · Nov 25, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
It would be helpful if you would answer the questions put to you, rather than being evasive, which is the norm for you.

I have attempted to. And I am not trying to be evasive. I can provide you a link to some free online references if you would like.

bhsmte · Nov 25, 2015

anonymous person said:
I don't know that eyewitness accounts are deeply flawed.

You know how courts of law determine the validity of eye witness accounts, don't you?

They compare the eye witness accounts to the forensic and physical evidence. They also, allow eye witnesses to be cross examined.

I think you would agree, legal procedures are designed to find the truth and if an eye witness is not available to provide their testimony in the flesh, they are not considered valid evidence.

bhsmte · Nov 25, 2015

anonymous person said:
Craig in saying what he does, is not arguing that it is not logically possible that he is wrong.

Craig is saying he would ignore any objective evidence, that goes against his personal faith belief.

Neogaia777 · Nov 25, 2015

Could you give me Philosophy 101, or at least an introduction to Philosophy, in one, or a couple paragraphs please?

God Bless!

anonymous person · Nov 25, 2015

bhsmte said:
You know how courts of law determine the validity of eye witness accounts, don't you?

They compare the eye witness accounts to the forensic and physical evidence. They also, allow eye witnesses to be cross examined.

I think you would agree, legal procedures are designed to find the truth and if an eye witness is not available to provide their testimony in the flesh, they are not considered valid evidence.

An eyewitness account is no less an eyewitness account just because the eyewitness is prohibited from testifying in person.

A sworn affidavit in such an instance will be utilized if available.

All of this is quite beside the point really.

Multiple eyewitness accounts of Banjo doing X is something I would have to consider in assessing the veracity of the claims made.

anonymous person · Nov 25, 2015

Neogaia777 said:
Could you give me Philosophy 101, or at least an introduction to Philosophy, in one, or a couple paragraphs please?

God Bless!

I can supply some links for you if you would like.

Neogaia777 · Nov 25, 2015

anonymous person said:
I can supply some links for you if you would like.

Yes, please... Are they good ones that you know, there seems to be some disagreement among philosophy teachers about Philosophy itself actually is?

Thanks,

God Bless!

bhsmte · Nov 25, 2015

anonymous person said:
An eyewitness account is no less an eyewitness account just because the eyewitness is prohibited from testifying in person.

A sworn affidavit in such an instance will be utilized if available.

All of this is quite beside the point really.

Multiple eyewitness accounts of Banjo doing X is something I would have to consider in assessing the veracity of the claims made.

Whenever an eye witness account can not be compared to physical evidence, or be questioned directly, it is far less reliable.

And when an eye witness can not be directly questioned, it becomes hearsay.

anonymous person · Nov 25, 2015

bhsmte said:
Whenever an eye witness account can not be compared to physical evidence, or be questioned directly, it is far less reliable.

And when an eye witness can not be directly questioned, it becomes hearsay.

If that is what you want to believe then fine.

I don't share the sentiment. If did I would have to dismiss much of what historians deem to be reliable accounts of historical events.

HitchSlap · Nov 25, 2015

anonymous person said:
If that is what you want to believe then fine.

I don't share the sentiment. If did I would have to dismiss much of what historians deem to be reliable accounts of historical events.

Only the parts that make supernatural claims, though.

bhsmte · Nov 25, 2015

anonymous person said:
If that is what you want to believe then fine.

I don't share the sentiment. If did I would have to dismiss much of what historians deem to be reliable accounts of historical events.

It isn't just what I believe, but has been supported with studies of eye witness accounts and their reliability.

If any historian claims there are eye witness accounts in the NT, they are simply assuming the unknown authors that penned the gospels, are accurately portraying the same. Many NT historians, do not agree the gospels are valid eye witness accounts.

anonymous person · Nov 25, 2015

bhsmte said:
It isn't just what I believe, but has been supported with studies of eye witness accounts and their reliability.

If any historian claims there are eye witness accounts in the NT, they are simply assuming the unknown authors that penned the gospels, are accurately portraying the same. Many NT historians, do not agree the gospels are valid eye witness accounts.

I respect that this is your view I just don't agree with it and I gave you one reason why I don't. If I were to adopt your view, I would of necessity, have to dismiss as unreliable any account which contained eyewitness testimony that was not corroborated by physical evidence or inaccessible to personal questioning. Since this methodology with this criteria is so restrictive as to eliminate much of what I have in the way of historical accounts, I choose not to adhere to it in favor of something less restrictive.

The misgivings you have recently expressed are not sufficient for me to abandon my less restrictive methodology for assessing the veracity and reliability of historical accounts in favor of yours that would require me to be a historical skeptic when it comes to much of what is considered historical by historiographers.

oi_antz · Nov 25, 2015

Aelred of Rievaulx said:
Have a look yourself.

Thanks. I did not see any comparisons though. I found a lot of assertions. What I would like, is some words copied from the bible and placed alongside some words from another text, with an explanation why they both equally appear to be myth.

oi_antz · Nov 25, 2015

Ana the Ist said:
This is an interesting way to put it...the old duck test. Let's take the duck test then shall we??

Suppose I told you a story about a guy named Banjo. He's a guy born of a virgin who was being hunted even before his birth because of a prophecy. His mother was a virgin...but she got magically knocked up by a sky spirit from god. When he was born three of the local chieftains followed a glowing green light to his birthplace in an abandoned asbestos shack in a swamp.

When Banjo gets older, he quits his day job wrastling gators to spread the news that he's the son of god. He's got all kinds of fancy powers like turning water to whisky, healing tuberculosis with just his hands, walking around on swamp water without sinking in, and he can bring his friends back to life by whistling Dixie. He only gathers a few followers...but he tells them he's gonna die for their shenanigans, to wash the world clean of shenanigans, and give everyone a chance to get into heaven...cuz he's the only way to get there.

Then he gets reverse hung (strappado) until he dies of internal bleeding...a very painful death indeed. After he's put into a crypt, he reappears to his friends and gives them the lowdown on the rapture and who's gonna win the Superbowl that year...

What do you think of my story?

It appears to be mocking the story of Jesus Christ.

Ana the Ist said:
If I added in names and places of real stuff from an accurate time period...would you think it a story of myth or reality?

If you had done that before I already found that it was mockery, it still would not be enough of a change in and of itself, to appear like a convincing claim to truth. There is no indication in your words, that you are saying something that you believe yourself.

Ana the Ist said:
You're darn right I believe you're using a double standard...in fact I'm certain of it. There aren't many elements of the story of Jesus that aren't found in many of the mythological stories of his day....yet you don't believe any of those mythological stories to be real.

Bolded part is an untested assumption. Possibly not true, but it does demonstrate that you are assuming to know something that has not been tested, and then going ahead to base your belief about me on that unverified assumption, and thereby demonstrating bias.

Ana the Ist said:
You believe your mythological story to be real....and the best reason you've given me for it is some notion of being able to tell who's lying or not simply by reading their words.

Well there's more to it than that. Ultimately, it stands up to scrutiny with rigidity that only truth can do.

Ana the Ist said:
What about Banjo Oi? He died for your shenanigans.

You don't believe this. You are lying and not even ashamed of it.

oi_antz · Nov 25, 2015

bhsmte said:
You haven't been paying attention and you have a habit of putting words in my mouth.

If you have followed my posts, you will see, I have made a serious attempt to determine the reliability of the claims made in the NT specifically. I have explained many times how I went about this and I do not find scripture to be a credible source of reality.

I really don't mind you stating your views, but you also do not answer my questions. That's really rude, fellow.

Ask a Christian philosopher a question

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Old Soul

Newbie

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Opposed to Untruth.

Opposed to Untruth.

Opposed to Untruth.

Similar threads