Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[bhsmte]

No, I'm saying those of faith will always have legitimate reasons to believe Goddidit. You even said yourself that it's reasonable to have faith that God exists. Should I not take you at your word?

Yes, you can, I take no issue with someone who states they believe in a God on faith and I have made that clear.

I have also made it clear, when I will challenge how one justifies their belief and they make claims they can not support.

In other words, when someone states; I believe in God on faith and I realize I can't demonstrate that God exists in any objective way. In those cases, I will not question their faith. If someone says, I believe in a God and I can demonstrate this in a verifiable and objective manner, I will ask them to demonstrate this.

 

[Chriliman]

Don't you think you should be able to provide more, if your god actually existed in some demonstrable way?

I still do not know what you mean by "God", other than you need most of mainstream science to be wrong for your beliefs to be right.

I don't accept your reasoning and logic as sound because, as I have pointed out on many occasions, your reasoning and logic are rife with false dichotomies, special pleading, question begging, unevidenced assertions, evasion, and semantic convolutions.

The intent of scientific methodology is to reduce or eliminate bias where possible, and by that, "gods" have yet to appear as being of significance.

Can you define you "God" in a testable, falsifiable manner, so that its existence can be objective considered? No?

You keep using that word "honestly" as if it is of some significance in your arguments. Why is that? Is that an accusation of lying pointed at everyone that disagrees with you?

Sorry Davian, it's very difficult for me take your skepticism seriously. You seem to be a skeptic just for the fun of it.

I'm not here for the fun of it, I'm here to explain why I have legitimate reasons to believe what I believe. You clearly don't accept my reasons and that's fine.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, you can, I take no issue with someone who states they believe in a God on faith and I have made that clear.

I have also made it clear, when I will challenge how one justifies their belief and they make claims they can not support.

In other words, when someone states; I believe in God on faith and I realize I can't demonstrate that God exists in any objective way. In those cases, I will not question their faith. If someone says, I believe in a God and I can demonstrate this in a verifiable and objective manner, I will ask them to demonstrate this.

But we can demonstrate that our reasoning is sound for our belief that God exists. Others can either accept our reasoning as sound and begin asking questions about God themselves and possibly begin believing or they can reject our reasoning and come up with there own reasons for why God does not exist. That's something I rarely see atheists do; provide reasons for why God must not exist. Stephen hawking was the first atheist that I really questioned to see if he was right and it didn't take much to realize he's not considering everything when he says Gods not needed for the universe to exist.

 

[bhsmte]

But we can demonstrate that our reasoning is sound for our belief that God exists. Others can either accept our reasoning as sound and begin asking questions about God themselves and possibly begin believing or they can reject our reasoning and come up with there own reasons for why God does not exist. That's something I rarely see atheists do; provide reasons for why God must not exist. Stephen hawking was the first atheist that I really questioned to see if he was right and it didn't take much to realize he's not considering everything when he says Gods not needed for the universe to exist.

I have yet to see you demonstrate, you are using sound reasoning and logic to conclude that a God exists.

My reasoning for not believing the Christian God exists are simple; I can not reconcile the Christian theology with reality and a simple, lack of reliable and verifiable evidence.

 

[Chriliman]

I have yet to see you demonstrate, you are using sound reasoning and logic to conclude that a God exists.

My reasoning for not believing the Christian God exists are simple; I can not reconcile the Christian theology with reality and a simple, lack of reliable and verifiable evidence.

That's fine. So we could say that I lack a complete understanding of the universe, which if I had a complete understanding, it might show that God does not exist. We could also say that you lack a complete understanding of Christian theology, which if you had a complete understanding, it might show that the Christian God is true.

Seem fair?

 

[bhsmte]

That's fine. So we could say that I lack a complete understanding of the universe, which if I had a complete understanding, it might show that God does not exist. We could also say that you lack a complete understanding of Christian theology, which if you had a complete understanding, it might show that the Christian God is true.

Seem fair?

No.

I went out of my way to understand Christian theology, when I was still a Christian and went to great lengths, to understand the historicity and meaning of the NT, by reading and studying the works of the works of NT scholars and historians.

The more I studied it, the less believable it became.

 

[Davian]

Sorry Davian, it's very difficult for me take your skepticism seriously. You seem to be a skeptic just for the fun of it.

I'm not here for the fun of it,

If you are not having fun here, you are doing something wrong. You should keep in mind that this forum not intended as a means for Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers.

Pretend that you are in a philosophy forum.

I'm here to explain why I have legitimate reasons to believe what I believe. You clearly don't accept my reasons and that's fine.

And I just stated why I do not accept your reasons. You can address those reasons, drop the fallacious arguments, or sweep my comments under the rug. If the latter, I'll just be here to keep flipping the rug back.

 

[Davian]

But we can demonstrate that our reasoning is sound for our belief that God exists.

You will need to do more that repeat this. More doing than saying.

Others can either accept our reasoning as sound and begin asking questions about God themselves and possibly begin believing or they can reject our reasoning and come up with there own reasons for why God does not exist. That's something I rarely see atheists do; provide reasons for why God must not exist.

The burden lies with the religionist to clearly state their claim and substantiate it. Have you defined your "god" in some testable, falsifiable manner? no?

Stephen hawking was the first atheist that I really questioned to see if he was right and it didn't take much to realize he's not considering everything when he says Gods not needed for the universe to exist.

Really? Do you think your line of argumentation would bring him around?

 

[Chriliman]

No.

I went out of my way to understand Christian theology, when I was still a Christian and went to great lengths, to understand the historicity and meaning of the NT, by reading and studying the works of the works of NT scholars and historians.

The more I studied it, the less believable it became.

But you didn't study the bible as a whole. OT and NT. The NT is supported by the OT in so many different ways.

It would be like me saying that I went to great lengths to study the universe and determined God does not exist, but I failed to study myself (which is a part of the universe).

Your conclusion is not completely objective if your leaving out half of what the bible provides for understanding it. Just like if I study the universe to great length, but fail to look inside myself, then I'm not being completely objective about the reality I perceive.

 

[bhsmte]

But you didn't study the bible as a whole. OT and NT. The NT is supported by the OT in so many different ways.

It would be like me saying that I went to great lengths to study the universe and determined God does not exist, but I failed to study myself (which is a part of the universe).

Your conclusion is not completely objective if your leaving out half of what the bible provides for understanding it. Just like if I study the universe to great length, but fail to look inside myself, then I'm not being completely objective about the reality I perceive.

No conclusion we reach is 100% objective, but some utilize more objectivity than others.

The NT is the basis for Christianity and I studied it extensively.

 

[anonymous person]

....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.

The problem you have is that you think people are going to actually take you serious with your whole "Jesus never existed" position.

You failed miserably in our debate on this topic. You did not even deal with much of what I wrote.

You need to change your views on this. If not you are not being intellectually honest.

Intellectually honest.......there it goes again....

 

[Ana the Ist]

The problem you have is that you think people are going to actually take you serious with your whole "Jesus never existed" position.

You failed miserably in our debate on this topic. You did not even deal with much of what I wrote.

You need to change your views on this. If not you are not being intellectually honest.

Intellectually honest.......there it goes again....

I'm sorry, I need to change my views on what?

My end of the debate was to show a lack of reasonable historical evidence of Jesus Christ. I made an argument to that end.

Your end was to show that there is reasonable historical evidence for Jesus Christ. You didn't even try to make an argument towards this end lol
You failed to show Tacitus and Josephus are reliable historical documents.
You failed to show they were evidence of Jesus Christ.
You never even mentioned any other evidence....so your entire argument rested on the premise (which you didn't make) that those two documents were enough to conclude a historical Jesus existed.

I had a feeling that you didn't understand the position you were taking in that debate.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A simple yes would suffice

You agree that we have yet to fully explain the universe? Meaning it's still unexplainable in a way that we can all agree is the truth.

Do you think we should currently be able to explain all of the universe?

If so...this is where your reasoning/logic fails.

 

[Chriliman]

No conclusion we reach is 100% objective, but some utilize more objectivity than others.

The NT is the basis for Christianity and I studied it extensively.

Correction, Jesus is the basis for Christianity and the whole Bible is the basis for Christian theology.

It's becoming more clear that you've missed the mark by quite a bit. Good thing you could always reconsider if you want.

 

[bhsmte]

Correction, Jesus is the basis for Christianity and the whole Bible is the basis for Christian theology.

It's becoming more clear that you've missed the mark by quite a bit. Good thing you could always reconsider if you want.

Jesus is discussed in the NT.

 

[Chriliman]

Do you think we should currently be able to explain all of the universe?

If so...this is where your reasoning/logic fails.

No I don't, but you did say that you fully understand reality. Should I dig up the quote? It wasn't too far back. Maybe it's your logic that is faulty?

 

[bhsmte]

No I don't, but you did say that you fully understand reality. Should I dig up the quote? It wasn't too far back. Maybe it's your logic that is faulty?

Is it not possible to understand the reality we have objective evidence for?

 

[Chriliman]

Jesus is discussed in the NT.

He's also referenced throughout the whole OT starting in Genesis.

 

[bhsmte]

He's also referenced throughout the whole OT starting in Genesis.

The claims about Jesus' life, etc., are discussed in the NT.

 

[Chriliman]

Is it not possible to understand the reality we have objective evidence for?

Sure is, but there's always more to learn and discover, which means there's always an opportunity to discover something that proves we've been wrong in our previous beliefs. That's what makes reality so interesting IMO.