A question for the faithful.

[Elioenai26]

Howso?
If you believe that something is true, then you must also believe that anything contrary to what you believe to be true, is false. Tertium non datur.

This my dear brother, is a prevailing malady among many "enlightened thinkers", especially in the west.

How is it that the concept of truth being exclusive by nature is not grasped? How is it that the concept that truth by its definition excludes that which is its negation or opposite is seen as being "intolerant"?

It seems this should be patently obvious! Yea, so conspicuously obvious that it would be undeniable. But alas, it is not so.

LionofJudahDK, a good demonstration that you can use to elucidate and validate your position is to say: "If I were to say that the Capital City of the U.S. is Washington D.C., would you brand me as an intolerant bigot?"

More than likely, the response will be: "Of course not!"

You can then say that the statement: "The capital city of the U.S. is Washington D.C." is a statement which is exclusivistic in nature. It excludes every other city in the world from being the capital city of the U.S. You can then say that if the capital city of the U.S. is shown to be Washington D.C. then we are simply speaking the truth regarding the matter. Far from being intolerant or bigoted against other cities, we are simply stating the facts.

This illustration is one but a plethora one can use to show the inconsistency inherent in the relativistic mindset.

 

[Elioenai26]

That doesn't even come close to addressing the question...

The question is, and I quote you:

"On what basis do you consider other religions false, but Christianity true?"

Lions response followed:

"Only speaking for myself, but:
Because the other religions are contrary to Christianity, and therefore, from a Christian POV, must be false."

To which you respond:

"That doesn't even come close to addressing the question..."

My comments on the above:

Dear Mr. Ellis, what LionofJudahDK is doing is in layman's terms referred to as working backwards from the derived conclusion and contrary to your assertion, is a very good means of addressing the question. This simply means that if Christianity is true, then by virtue of their own teachings, all other religions and worldviews must be false because they all make mutually exclusive claims about our origin, meaning of life, morality, and destiny.

Here is where the LNC steps in. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Courtesy of Wikipedia.

So for example Mr. Ellis, in Islam, the noble Quran claims that Jesus was never crucified and that it just appeared that He had been. Now, what do the Holy Scriptures say regarding this? They maintain that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified during the rule of Pontius Pilate.

So what? You may say....

Well, it should be patently obvious that both cannot be true. Jesus could not have both been crucified and not crucified. He could not both have died and not died. To maintain that He could have would be clearly to hold a self-contradictory position. He either was crucified or He was not.

Now, in addition to the testimony and records of Christian historians who maintain that Jesus was actually crucified at the hands of Romans, we have the testimony and records of the following:

Greek historians
Roman historians
Pagan historians
Jewish historians

All of the above attest to the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a man that lived in a certain place, at a certain time, and did certain things, and was killed in a certain way. Now, the Quran which claims that it is word for word the very word of God, states that He did not die, that He was not crucified. On this alone we can confidently and with great assurance make the statement that "Islam cannot be true".

A simple error, need only a simple correction.

Another important thing to remember Mr. Ellis is that every religion, every worldview, every philosophy makes mutually exclusivistic claims that result in them being fundamentally different, and at best, superficially similar.

It is true that there are various common themes that run throughout the major religions of the world, this is undeniable. However, in every major matter of doctrinal importance which distinguishes one from the other, they are fundamentally different and teach fundamentally different ideas and precepts which by their very nature, make them mutually exclusive from one another.

The question you seem to be wanting answered is what reason do we have for maintaining Christianity is true? This is the work of the apologist and theologian and you would do well to take an honest, open look at their defenses.

 

[madaz]

Howso?
If you believe that something is true, then you must also believe that anything contrary to what you believe to be true, is false. Tertium non datur.

If you believe something is true, it might actually be false.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The question is, and I quote you:

"On what basis do you consider other religions false, but Christianity true?"

Lions response followed:

"Only speaking for myself, but:
Because the other religions are contrary to Christianity, and therefore, from a Christian POV, must be false."

To which you respond:

"That doesn't even come close to addressing the question..."

My comments on the above:

Dear Mr. Ellis, what LionofJudahDK is doing is in layman's terms referred to as working backwards from the derived conclusion and contrary to your assertion, is a very good means of addressing the question. This simply means that if Christianity is true, then by virtue of their own teachings, all other religions and worldviews must be false because they all make mutually exclusive claims about our origin, meaning of life, morality, and destiny.

Here is where the LNC steps in. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Courtesy of Wikipedia.

So for example Mr. Ellis, in Islam, the noble Quran claims that Jesus was never crucified and that it just appeared that He had been. Now, what do the Holy Scriptures say regarding this? They maintain that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified during the rule of Pontius Pilate.

So what? You may say....

Well, it should be patently obvious that both cannot be true. Jesus could not have both been crucified and not crucified. He could not both have died and not died. To maintain that He could have would be clearly to hold a self-contradictory position. He either was crucified or He was not.

Now, in addition to the testimony and records of Christian historians who maintain that Jesus was actually crucified at the hands of Romans, we have the testimony and records of the following:

Greek historians
Roman historians
Pagan historians
Jewish historians

All of the above attest to the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a man that lived in a certain place, at a certain time, and did certain things, and was killed in a certain way. Now, the Quran which claims that it is word for word the very word of God, states that He did not die, that He was not crucified. On this alone we can confidently and with great assurance make the statement that "Islam cannot be true".

A simple error, need only a simple correction.

Another important thing to remember Mr. Ellis is that every religion, every worldview, every philosophy makes mutually exclusivistic claims that result in them being fundamentally different, and at best, superficially similar.

It is true that there are various common themes that run throughout the major religions of the world, this is undeniable. However, in every major matter of doctrinal importance which distinguishes one from the other, they are fundamentally different and teach fundamentally different ideas and precepts which by their very nature, make them mutually exclusive from one another.

The question you seem to be wanting answered is what reason do we have for maintaining Christianity is true? This is the work of the apologist and theologian and you would do well to take an honest, open look at their defenses.

This is a rather long drawn out non-answer... The point was as follows:

I understand that if Christianity is true that the other religions are false... That's blatantly obvious.

I asked how he knows Christianity is true, and responding with "if Christianity is true then all other religions are false" does not answer, or address the question.

What basis does he have for believing in Christianity over other religions.

 

[madaz]

... what LionofJudahDK is doing is in layman's terms referred to as working backwards from the derived conclusion...

What LionofJudahDK did is in layman's terms referred to as working backwards from a presupposed conclusion...

 

[LionofJudahDK]

If you believe something is true, it might actually be false.

Certainly. There is the possibility, even though I do not believe it is the case, that Christianity is false.
However, Christianity and islam and rabbinical Judaism cannot all be true. One, two, or all of them MUST be wrong.

Elioenai made that point much more eloquently than I did.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

What basis does he have for believing in Christianity over other religions.

My personal conviction. Since I have not claimed, nor was this part of the question, that I have proven that Christianity IS right, I need nothing more, in answering this question.

 

[Max S Cherry]

My personal conviction. Since I have not claimed, nor was this part of the question, that I have proven that Christianity IS right, I need nothing more, in answering this question.

Thank you. This highlights a serious problem with this thread. The question has been entirely forgotten by some, and considering that we are fifteen pages into it, it may be time to consider a new thread.

I would be interested in anyone's proof for the existence of God since I lack any, but I did not feel that was the purpose of this thread. Of course, one's proof is not necessarily proof to another, so it would probably be fruitless. Interesting but likely fruitless.

 

[Davian]

Your use of hypothetical scenarios on what "might be if so and so were this and not that" when my post was centered on why there is no utility or usefulness in that which is false, is indicative of your inability to provide some substantiated counter-perspective to what I have written. At the risk of being presumptuous, I dare to even say you agree with me, no?

What hypothetical?

Falsehoods and lies always have been and always will be without true utility, especially, and I do repeat especially when it comes to matters of particular worldviews, all of which claim to be true. If one comes to the knowledge that their particular worldview is false and does not correspond to the actual nature of those things which it claims to, and still maintains their position because it is "useful" then this is only evidence that said person is at best dishonest, and at worst, self-deceived.

If one does not come to the knowledge that their particular worldview is false and does not correspond to the actual nature of those things which it claims to, and maintains their position because it is "useful", this not evidence that said person is not self-deceived.

 

[Elioenai26]

What basis does he have for believing in Christianity over other religions.

And I will say what I said before:

The basis for believing in Christianity is the subject of too many works of literature to be counted, and this is just in literature alone. It has been the subject and area of research and study for apologists, scientists, philosophers, and theologians for centuries. With the movement of an index finger and the click of a mouse, you can access it all. I am confident that if you are in search of the truth and are open to it, then you will find what you seek and reach your destination. I wish you well on your journey. It is one we must all make, or ..... refuse to make.... the choice is yours.

 

[Elioenai26]

What LionofJudahDK did is in layman's terms referred to as working backwards from a presupposed conclusion...

He may have presupposed Christianity was true. He may not have. What I have done is give him the benefit of the doubt as I would wish someone would do for me in the same situation.

However he began is simply not germane to his assertion: "Christianity is true"...

Your objection is one which is based on a classic error in logic referred to as the "genetic fallacy".

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue, is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context...the fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. *Courtesy of Wikipedia, emphasis not mine.*

Christianity is true, even if a proponent of it knows nothing of its intellectual components.

Christianity is true, even if one of its proponents presupposed that it was true before he began to seek to understand it logically.

Christianity is true regardless of how one defends it.

It is true of false based on whether or not it is internally consistent and whether its assertions are substantiated and supported by evidence. When it comes down to it, regarding the question of Christianity's validity, it simply does not matter one bit how one began their research into the claims of Christianity. It is true or false based on whether or not it gives us an accurate description of reality.

 

[Elioenai26]

What hypothetical?

And I quote you:

"Unless you (and those around you) have been deceived into thinking what is false is actually real."

Explanation:

Your usage of the word "unless" followed by the potential scenario of "you (and those around you) have been deceived into thinking what is false is actually real." is indicatory of a hypothetical. It is akin to saying: "if...so and so happened" or "if so and so were actually real"....

This is what I mean by hypothetical and by hypothetical I mean: speculative, theoretical, suppositional and existing only as an idea or concept:

If one does not come to the knowledge that their particular worldview is false and does not correspond to the actual nature of those things which it claims to, and maintains their position because it is "useful", this not evidence that said person is not self-deceived.

The last portion of this statement is nonsensical. Did you mean to say: "this is not evidence..."???

 

[Davian]

And I quote you:

"Unless you (and those around you) have been deceived into thinking what is false is actually real."

Explanation:

Your usage of the word "unless" followed by the potential scenario of "you (and those around you) have been deceived into thinking what is false is actually real." is indicatory of a hypothetical. It is akin to saying: "if...so and so happened" or "if so and so were actually real"....

This is what I mean by hypothetical and by hypothetical I mean: speculative, theoretical, suppositional and existing only as an idea or concept:

I did not mean it as a hypothetical.

The last portion of this statement is nonsensical. Did you mean to say: "this is not evidence..."???

Yes. To reiterate, if one does not come to the knowledge that their particular worldview is false and does not correspond to the actual nature of those things which it claims to, and maintains their position because it is "useful", this is not evidence that said person is not self-deceived.

It was just a play on your words. To put it another way, people around the world get utility (you are not clear what you mean by "true utility") from their particular religion, deceived into believing their religion to be true, even if those religions are actually, as you said, falsehoods and lies.

 

[Dave Ellis]

My personal conviction. Since I have not claimed, nor was this part of the question, that I have proven that Christianity IS right, I need nothing more, in answering this question.

Well, if that's all you're going on, then you hold an unjustified belief.

 

[Dave Ellis]

And I will say what I said before:

The basis for believing in Christianity is the subject of too many works of literature to be counted, and this is just in literature alone. It has been the subject and area of research and study for apologists, scientists, philosophers, and theologians for centuries. With the movement of an index finger and the click of a mouse, you can access it all. I am confident that if you are in search of the truth and are open to it, then you will find what you seek and reach your destination. I wish you well on your journey. It is one we must all make, or ..... refuse to make.... the choice is yours.

Yet the reasons for accepting this religion have no empirical evidence to back them, and are often if not always based on some form of logical fallacy.

There is no more reason to accept your religion as true than any other religion.

 

[madaz]

Dear Mr. Ellis, what LionofJudahDK is doing is in layman's terms referred to as working backwards from the derived conclusion

What LionofJudahDK did is in layman's terms is referred to as working backwards from a presupposed conclusion...

He may have presupposed Christianity was true. He may not have. What I have done is give him the benefit of the doubt as I would wish someone would do for me in the same situation.

LionofJudahDK did in fact presuppose Christianity was true, there is NO doubt to give him the benefit of.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yet the reasons for accepting this religion have no empirical evidence to back them, and are often if not always based on some form of logical fallacy.

There is no more reason to accept your religion as true than any other religion.

So you are an empiricist then?

 

[Elioenai26]

LionofJudahDK did in fact presuppose Christianity was true, there is NO doubt to give him the benefit of.

And?

 

[Elioenai26]

I did not mean it as a hypothetical.

Yes. To reiterate, if one does not come to the knowledge that their particular worldview is false and does not correspond to the actual nature of those things which it claims to, and maintains their position because it is "useful", this is not evidence that said person is not self-deceived.

It was just a play on your words. To put it another way, people around the world get utility (you are not clear what you mean by "true utility") from their particular religion, deceived into believing their religion to be true, even if those religions are actually, as you said, falsehoods and lies.

Your point is?

 

[AlexBP]

Your response in #87 does not address my question in #36.

Yes it does. I said that "Most of the arguments that atheists toss at me are so absurd and illogical that they tend to strengthen my conviction that Christianity is true." In #36 you responded by saying: "Sounds interesting, will you please post a quoted example?" In #87 I replied by saying this:

Sure. Your claim that "Christianity adopted most of its rituals from the mithra religion" is an example, since it's blatantly untrue. If atheists had the truth of their side, they wouldn't find it necessary to make up such things.
​

So my response in #87 addresses your question in #36. It addresses your question directly and specifically, with an actual quote from you. What on earth are you talking about when you say that #87 doesn't address the question in #36?