Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[Ana the Ist]

Archaeopteryx our forum monitor will have to approve that this post is not apologetic in nature before I respond to it. Then i will have to submit my response to him for review before he authorizes me to post it. I do not want to break any rules.

So maybe one day you will receive my reply.

If you didn't want to respond, that's fine. I'd prefer that you just say so though...not drag Arch into it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I mean that I exist as a being who is capable of reflecting upon why and how I exist. This fact is extraordinary, especially considering the unimaginable odds against my existence.

I did not choose to exist, yet I exist and can make choices. It's either my choices are an illusion and thinking my choices matter is wishful thinking - or - I exist to make choices for a reason. This reason would be beyond my control because I did not choose to exist, something made me to exist and wants me to make correct choices to fulfill a purpose.

I believe the latter because of my personal experiences in life.

Do you think I'm telling you the truth?

I think that you believe what you're telling me....I don't think it's true.

You haven't shown me anything "extraordinary" about the way we live. Maybe being capable of choices is extraordinary to you...but it isn't to me.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

In the meantime, you should be able to read the entire work edited by Thomas Morris entitled: God and the Philosophers.

You should read Alvin Plantinga's Faith and Rationality for a better book on philosophy of religion. And you should read GEM Anscombe's Ethics, Religion and Politics, Alasdaire MacIntyre's God, Philosophy, Universities. Also you should read John Hick, probably the most important philosopher of religion of the twentieth century. And you should read the Continentals, Derrida's Religion, Caputo/Vatimo After the Death of God, Zizek's The Monstrosity of Christ. There's no reason to be scared of academia...

 

[oi_antz]

I don't see how that is proof of anything, except that is what you believe.

The word "proof", is a pretty strong word, which requires a good deal of support, not just subjective interpretions.

I am not sure why you are suggesting that a reliable pattern of subjective interpretations is not good support for proof.

 

[oi_antz]

I have made great effort to analyze the veracity of the claims in the NT specifically, as I have explained many times on these threads. In fact, this effort, is one of the reasons I am no longer a Christian.

So, it is clear, you either have not paid attention to my posts or you are asking the wrong question, because I have addressed the question numerous times, with explaining how I went about determining the credibility of NT claims.

I am sure your effort is misplaced. "yes" and "no" require only striking two to three keys.

 

[oi_antz]

An affidavit would be considered by a court of law, but would not carry the same weight as an eye witness appearing in person and being subjected to cross examination.

You do realize, some eye witnesses are simply wrong in what they claim they saw and some simply lie. Or, is this not a possibility to you?

Yes, I am aware that some people give genuinely wrong information, and that some people intentionally give misleading information. But what you are saying here is different from what the statement said that I objected to. Perhaps this is due to some expectation you have, that I would assume your first statement was not complete (I am not a lawyer). If that is the case, then that is OK and my objection becomes invalid when the legal procedure does in fact permit witness testimony to consideration in absence of the witness. But, you are now saying that such a written witness' testimony is accepted to consideration, whereas you first said that it wasn't.

 

[oi_antz]

Clearly, you have not followed along in this thread, and seen what Chrillman has posted.

He essentially said, no one could teach him anything about logic, so I made an obvious statement based on Chrillman's posts, that anyone trying to help him with logical thinking, had the chips stacked against them.

It was a joke though, right? I only asked HitchSlap why he didn't try to support you to be more serious and helpful, and in fact why did he encourage this behaviour. I wanted to see what HitchSlap would say. You shouldn't feel offended by this, because you wanted to be recognised as making a joke.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I am not sure why you are suggesting that a reliable pattern of subjective interpretations is not good support for proof.

Confirmation bias can create this just as easily as the truth can.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You say legal procedures are designed to find the truth, but that the procedure prevents the consideration of a written testimony from a person if they are not available for cross-examination. Yet, if a person has deceased since their written testimony was made, and their testimony is useful for finding the truth, and especially if that testimony is crucial for finding the truth, then the procedure has actually prevented the truth from being considered and it is then not true to say that the procedure is designed to find the truth.

You have to consider the standard of truth a court of law is seeking. They seek guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of innocence. That's a very high standard...and it's intentionally that high. The rules are written in the defendant's favor so that the court is more likely to find a guilty man innocent than it is to find an innocent man guilty.

I never really understood the whole "Jesus could be proven in a court of law" nonsense some christians trot out in these arguments. It appeals to a person's view of the justice system...but also depends entirely upon their lack of understanding behind it.

I've never heard of a court allowing second-hand testimony....written or recorded or not. That would eliminate the gospels, the epistles, and any mention of Jesus from outside the bible. There's not exactly much left after that to build a case upon.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

You have to consider the standard of truth a court of law is seeking. They seek guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of innocence. That's a very high standard...and it's intentionally that high. The rules are written in the defendant's favor so that the court is more likely to find a guilty man innocent than it is to find an innocent man guilty.

I never really understood the whole "Jesus could be proven in a court of law" nonsense some christians trot out in these arguments. It appeals to a person's view of the justice system...but also depends entirely upon their lack of understanding behind it.

I've never heard of a court allowing second-hand testimony....written or recorded or not. That would eliminate the gospels, the epistles, and any mention of Jesus from outside the bible. There's not exactly much left after that to build a case upon.

The upside is that historians are not lawyers. I've studied history and can be fairly sure of the various scholarly consensuses on various issues, you'll find most historians believe that some sort of demythologised historical Jesus probably existed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The upside is that historians are not lawyers. I've studied history and can be fairly sure of the various scholarly consensuses on various issues, you'll find most historians believe that some sort of demythologised historical Jesus probably existed.

....and?

Arguments from authority and popularity are still logical fallacies. You can't derive the truth from them. I've got no problem with someone saying "most modern scholars agree blah blah blah" as long as we're following this up with a discussion of evidence.

 

[Chriliman]

And I take no issue with someone that claims they believe in a God on faith.

I only take issue and or challenge, when they claim they have evidence that non believers are missing and or they use logic and reasoning in an objective way to determine God exists.

The only evidence I'm presenting is myself and my reasoning and logic. If you accepted my reasoning and logic as reasonable then you'd begin to seriously consider believing in God. However, you don't accept my reasoning and logic as sound, simply because you take issue with those who present their reasoning and logic as evidence for others to objectively consider the existence of God.

Let me ask you a question; do you believe that if everyone was able to shed their biases and objectively consider the existence of God, that everyone would conclude that God does not exist? Or would everyone conclude that they honestly don't know if God exists or not?

 

[Chriliman]

I think that you believe what you're telling me....I don't think it's true.

You haven't shown me anything "extraordinary" about the way we live. Maybe being capable of choices is extraordinary to you...but it isn't to me.

So it's your opinion that it's not extraordinary that we as homosapiense exist because of an unexplainable universe that caused us to evolve for an undisclosed amount of time into beings that can consider why this universe is unexplainable?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The only evidence I'm presenting is myself and my reasoning and logic. If you accepted my reasoning and logic as reasonable then you'd begin to seriously consider believing in God. However, you don't accept my reasoning and logic as sound, simply because you take issue with those who present their reasoning and logic as evidence for others to objectively consider the existence of God.

Let me ask you a question; do you believe that if everyone was able to shed their biases and objectively consider the existence of God, that everyone would conclude that God does not exist? Or would everyone conclude that they honestly don't know if God exists or not?

You keep saying "my reasoning and logic" as if you own them. You do realize that logic doesn't change from person to person...right? Your reasoning is certainly your own ...but everyone is subject to the same laws of logic. If it appears to you that you have your own "logic" or "logical rules" then it's probably because you're breaking the laws of logic repeatedly. In other words....

When it comes to logic, you're doing it wrong.

 

[Chriliman]

You keep saying "my reasoning and logic" as if you own them. You do realize that logic doesn't change from person to person...right? Your reasoning is certainly your own ...but everyone is subject to the same laws of logic. If it appears to you that you have your own "logic" or "logical rules" then it's probably because you're breaking the laws of logic repeatedly. In other words....

When it comes to logic, you're doing it wrong.

Huh? I am responsible for my understanding of logic and I am responsible for how I use logic to form reasonable thoughts. We are beings who are capable of being logical, but we are restricted to our individual understanding of logic.

Again, how is this not logical? If it is logical, then how can you claim I'm doing it wrong? Are you just making things up to help you feel better about your position?

 

[bhsmte]

The only evidence I'm presenting is myself and my reasoning and logic. If you accepted my reasoning and logic as reasonable then you'd begin to seriously consider believing in God. However, you don't accept my reasoning and logic as sound, simply because you take issue with those who present their reasoning and logic as evidence for others to objectively consider the existence of God.

Let me ask you a question; do you believe that if everyone was able to shed their biases and objectively consider the existence of God, that everyone would conclude that God does not exist? Or would everyone conclude that they honestly don't know if God exists or not?

If humans were did not have a psychological need to believe in things like Gods, no one would believe in a God.

If you read any human psychology, you know why humans require and seek explanations. Depending on one's individual psyche, this can mean a need to believe in deities.

In regards to the question in your last paragraph, I believe if pure objectivity was in play, the conclusion would be, the Christian theology and God is highly unlikely to be true. Regarding deism, also unlikely to be true, but a better chance of being true than Christianity.

 

[bhsmte]

It was a joke though, right? I only asked HitchSlap why he didn't try to support you to be more serious and helpful, and in fact why did he encourage this behaviour. I wanted to see what HitchSlap would say. You shouldn't feel offended by this, because you wanted to be recognised as making a joke.

Offended? No, I did not feel offended.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Huh? I am responsible for my understanding of logic and I am responsible for how I use logic to form reasonable thoughts.

Your posts suggest that you're quite irresponsible in that regard.

 

[bhsmte]

I am not sure why you are suggesting that a reliable pattern of subjective interpretations is not good support for proof.

How do you know if a pattern is reliable and aligns with the truth?

 

[bhsmte]

I am sure your effort is misplaced. "yes" and "no" require only striking two to three keys.

I am sure you believe, my effort was misplaced.