The value of our epistemological method in coming to a belief...

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course, I'd be quite interested to see how you applied the outsider's test of faith, because I can't see how any religion is able to stick out over any other when rigorously applied...

Yep, particulrly interested to hear how you applied that outsider's test of faith to your own...

Au contraire! One probably would be wiser to not apply any epistemic heuristic until he/she has become thoroughly familiar with the structural matrix of the theoretical construct of measurement being applied. You don't imbibe just any drink or eat just any donut without first looking at its contents, do you? [Gee, I sure hope you don't!] Of course, I've know people who just down a Mountain Dew or a Red Bull , or chow down on a Transfat filled meal without considering the consequences of the "application" to their thirst or hunger ...........and it's the same in this case, epistemologically speaking. What I tend to see, more often than not, are people who----due to being generally "Pee Oh'd" at Christianity----get so Gung Ho to see Christian Faith set sail and sink over the horizon [or just sink, period] that they just grab any two-cent concept and run with it. So, I'd say that the OTF needs to be qualified first through deconstruction before someone just blatantly presumes too much about the 'benefits' of its use, particularly where religion is concerned.

Agreed. It also helps to read up on the histories of each of these religions, when they started, where they come from, etc. There's a huge amount of support for the Egyptian religion being the foundation for pretty much every religion from the polytheism of the Roman, Greek pantheons, which gave rise to the Norse and Hindu religions, to even the monotheistic religions starting with Zoroastrians which preceded the Abrahamic religions by about the same time as Hinduism does - which is somewhere between 600 and 1500 years. I understand that this history is as contentious as evolution is to the fundamentalists, and this is why ancient egyptian history is barely touched on in history classes in american schools. The rest of us have no problem with science and history.

Don't worry; I already tend to do all of this kind of thing. And I do so love science and history, not to mention the Philosophy of Science and the Philosophy of History. There's just so much there that one could almost *choke* on when attempting to justify so many things, don't you think?

Which Pharaoh? There's several thousand years worth of Pharaohs, and funny how neither recorded history, nor the Bible seem to identify the Pharaoh in question...

Don't ask 'which Pharoah.' Don't switch tracks here, going from the moral question and instead over to the historical question---you know good and well that I'm only talking about the supposed contexts surrounding the literary figure that we find in the Book of Exodus. That is what I'm referring to. IF you want to talk about 'which Pharoah' in historical terms, then that is a different topic altogether.

And I'm not going to pander to the "Take the Christian into a thousand different tangents of qualification so that the main discussion gets bogged down in too many deliberations........and just jump from one lilly-pad to another whenever the Christian attempts to make a point!" Yeah, homie don't play that game. So, pick your poison and stick to it. I'm only going to juggle one or two topics at a time.....

Indeed.

Yessiree, indeed! Context is King, that's why I apply this little thing called Philosophical Hermeneutics to everything I do [...or I attempt to, anyway. But y'know, no one is perfect].

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Au contraire! One probably would be wiser to not apply any epistemic heuristic until he/she has become thoroughly familiar with the structural matrix of the theoretical construct of measurement being applied. You don't imbibe just any drink or eat just any donut without first looking at its contents, do you? [Gee, I sure hope you don't!] Of course, I've know people who just down a Mountain Dew or a Red Bull , or chow down on a Transfat filled meal without considering the consequences of the "application" to their thirst or hunger ...........and it's same in this case, epistemologically speaking. What I tend to see, more often than not, are people who----due to being generally "Pee Oh'd" at Christianity----get so Gung Ho to see Christian Faith set sail and sink over the horizon [or just sink, period] that they just grab any two-cent concept and run with it. So, I'd say that the OTF needs to be qualified first through deconstruction before someone just blatantly presumes too much about the 'benefits' of its use, particularly where religion is concerned.

presumptuous word salad. This seems to be you avoiding answering the question. How did you rigorously apply the outsider test of faith to your own beliefs?

Don't worry; I already tend to do all of this kind of thing. And I do so love science and history, not to mention the Philosophy of Science and the Philosophy of History. There's just so much there that one could almost *choke* on when attempting to justify so many things, don't you think?

Agreed, especially when one is heavily invested in a belief before approaching the question...

Don't ask 'which Pharoah.' Don't switch tracks here, going from the moral question and instead over to the historical question---you know good and well that I'm only talking about the supposed contexts surrounding the literary figure that we find in the Book of Exodus. That is what I'm referring to. IF you want to talk about 'which Pharoah' in historical terms, then that is a different topic altogether.

well, the topic of my query was the moral question of killing innocent beings as a supposedly "Good God", what is there to talk about as far as the Pharaoh of the bible is concerned? I was never referring to the Pharaoh of the bible when I proposed an alternative religion killing the first born of all christian families for not believing a hypothetical "True Religion" - it was an example of the double-standard you quite abruptly apply to all other religions that aren't your special religion, and how accurate was I there in your case, right?

And I'm not going to pander to the "Take the Christian into a thousand different tangents of qualification so that the main discussion gets bogged down in too many deliberations........and just jump from one lilly-pad to another whenever the Christian attempts to make a point!" Yeah, homie don't play that game. So, pick your poison and stick to it. I'm only going to juggle one or two topics at a time.....

I'm more than happy to ride out any point you'd like to stick to.

Yessiree, indeed! Context is King, that's why I apply this little thing called Philosophical Hermeneutics to everything I do [...or I attempt to, anyway. But y'know, no one is perfect].

Cool....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

presumptuous word salad. This seems to be you avoiding answering the question. How did you rigorously apply the outsider test of faith to your own beliefs?

I think there's a gestalt in here ... somewhere ... that you're not recognizing.

Agreed, especially when one is heavily invested in a belief before approaching the question...

well, the topic of my query was the moral question of killing innocent beings as a supposedly "Good God", what is there to talk about as far as the Pharaoh of the bible is concerned? I was never referring to the Pharaoh of the bible when I proposed an alternative religion killing the first born of all christian families for not believing a hypothetical "True Religion" - it was an example of the double-standard you quite abruptly apply to all other religions that aren't your special religion, and how accurate was I there in your case, right?

I'm more than happy to ride out any point you'd like to stick to.

Cool....

It's your LilyPond; which lily pad are you wanting to float on? I would think that since (supposedly) your OP is talking about epistemological method, you'd want to stick to that, or with something directly related like the OTF. But, from the looks of it, it appears you're hopping around quite a bit. And all of the subsequent splashing doesn't do much for my flames.

But, that's ok. I understand. An atheist with an agenda has to do what an atheist with agenda has to do, right?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I think there's a gestalt in here ... somewhere ... that you're not recognizing.

Feel free to spell it out.

It's your LilyPond; which lily pad are you wanting to float on? I would think that since (supposedly) your OP is talking about epistemological method, you'd want to stick to that, or with something directly related like the OTF. But, from the looks of it, it appears you're hopping around quite a bit. And all of the subsequent splashing doesn't do much for my flames.

Well, I'm interested to hear how you applied the outsider's test of faith to your own belief. If that's too much, I'm also happy to discuss the merits of a supposed "loving and good God" killing innocent infants en-mass since that seemed to be your entry vector.

But, that's ok. I understand. An atheist with an agenda has to do what an atheist with agenda has to do, right?

If that's what you have to tell yourself. You could ask me rather than presuppose my "agenda", but why would you if you already know, right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Feel free to spell it out.

Ok. Here ya go! What'ya "make" of this?

Well, I'm interested to hear how you applied the outsider's test of faith to your own belief.

Sure. I'd be more than happy to start with this ... let's do it! Oh, and feel free to cite your work as you go. I do so dislike it when people just dump and run, and pretend that their opinion actually counts for something without showing "their work" or "their sources."

If that's too much, I'm also happy to discuss the merits of a supposed "loving and good God" killing innocent infants en-mass since that seemed to be your entry vector.

Oh no, I'm all for taking first things first...like Epistemological "justification" for [or against] Christianity.....whatever that actually could be for either side.

If that's what you have to tell yourself. You could ask me rather than presuppose my "agenda", but why would you if you already know, right?

Oh, I'm not telling myself much in the way of anything. I assume that I myself know little and that it behooves me to instead take in the various brilliances [plural] of the various highly degreed individuals around me, who I'm confident know more than I do.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Ok. Here ya go! What'ya "make" of this?

You would rather muddy the water on the outsiders test of faith rather than honestly apply it to your deeply held belief - I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you haven't honestly applied the OTF to your own faith "and passed [Oh, the Irony]" as you initially hinted?

Sure. I'd be more than happy to start with this ... let's do it! Oh, and feel free to cite your work as you go. I do so dislike it when people just dump and run, and pretend that their opinion actually counts for something without showing "their work" or "their sources."

No problem, I'll stick it out.

Oh no, I'm all for taking first things first...like Epistemological "justification" for [or against] Christianity.....whatever that actually could be for either side.

Sure, let's work with OTF for now.

Oh, I'm not telling myself much in the way of anything. I assume that I myself know little and that it behooves me to instead take in the various brilliances [plural] of the various highly degreed individuals around me, who I'm confident know more than I do.

same.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You would rather muddy the water on the outsiders test of faith rather than honestly apply it to your deeply held belief - I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you haven't honestly applied the OTF to your own faith "and passed [Oh, the Irony]" as you initially hinted?

I appreciate your attempt at implied Ad Hominem, but muddying the waters? Never. And doing so with my dishonesty? Well honestly, it's not me that's doing all of the splashing around here, Buggy! Besides, all I'm doing is standing on the banks and trying to tell you that your LilyPond, however buoyant it may seem to be to you while you float on your lily pads, is polluted and sits over a plume of methane gas. I really would hate to see you drown, it wouldn't be very Christian of me to just watch and wait like that.

As to my own passing of the OTF, you're right, I didn't "really" pass, because.....well.....if the OTF isn't really as robust and coherent as its claimants say it is, even if it does have a few good points to make, then there is little real test for me to apply, or for anyone else to apply for that matter.

BUT, just to show you that I am being honest, I've pulled my copy of The CHRISTIAN DELUSION off the shelf and dusted the jacket, and now when you're ready, I'll just turn to p. 81 [the chapter on the OTF], since in the overall but existentially arbitrary attempt to apply this as an epistemic "method" one must acquire a cognizance of the actual praxis that is to be [hopefully?] applied...................I mean, you wouldn't want me to drive a car if I didn't actually have a driver's license and the "practice" to go with it, now would you?

So, let's see just how far I can go with John before I have to back off when I now write my "Dear John...." and while I attempt to slice his essay apart paragraph by paragraph. [And please don't tell me you don't have that kind of time by which to look at every nook and cranny of the OTF... even if you may not really have that kind of time, because honestly, I know that I don't, and I don't really want to have to met out an ongoing apologia for the next 4 months on this one thing alone. But, here we go anyway.............]

No problem, I'll stick it out.

I do hope it's not your neck to which you're referring. Especially since I think that although John Loftus is a very insightful guy, and while I feel his pangs of remorse over his past experiences and thought by which he came to derive the OTF, I still have to deconstruct his OTF all the same. Sometimes, life sucks like that, and I know how it can be to have to deal with other people, even with some who claim to be Christian but at the same time pull out their batons and start whacking any 'heretic' in arms length over the head.

same.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I appreciate your attempt at implied Ad Hominem...

Great start opening with a dishonest statement - especially when I said nothing about you and in a moment, you'll confirm what I actually did suspect, to boot.

...but muddying the waters? Never. And doing so with my dishonesty? Well honestly, it's not me that's doing all of the splashing around here, Buggy! Besides, all I'm doing is standing on the banks and trying to tell you that your LilyPond, however buoyant it may seem to be to you while you float on your lily pads, is polluted and sits over a plume of methane gas. I really would hate to see you drown, it wouldn't be very Christian of me to just watch and wait like that.

Well, I can't say I'm sure about that. If a God exists, then obviously it's in my best interest to know, and that's among my motivations. This still seems to be an avoiding of the conversation though, and more like a mounted defence of an apriori position rather than an honest assessment of our own position. What worries you so much about the OTF anyway?

As to my own passing of the OTF, you're right, I didn't "really" pass,

because.....well.....if the OTF isn't really as robust and coherent as its claimants say it is, even if it does have a few good points to make, then there is little real test for me to apply, or for anyone else to apply for that matter.

Great! Let's deconstruct the OTF then, see what these problems are, shall we?

BUT, just to show you that I am being honest, I've pulled my copy of The CHRISTIAN DELUSION off the shelf and dusted the jacket, and now when you're ready, I'll just turn to p. 81 [the chapter on the OTF], since in the overall but existentially arbitrary attempt to apply this as an epistemic "method" one must acquire a cognizance of the actual praxis that is to be [hopefully?] applied..........

it seems you're good at tapdancing, especially while exuding condescention all the while... any reason why you're like this? It's almost as if you're posturing, and not really all that serious...

.........I mean, you wouldn't want me to drive a car if I didn't actually have a driver's license and the "practice" to go with it, now would you?

So, let's see just how far I can go with John before I have to back off when I now write my "Dear John...." and while I attempt to slice his essay apart paragraph by paragraph. [And please don't tell me you don't have that kind of time by which to look at every nook and cranny of the OTF...

I'm good to go...

even if you may not really have that kind of time, because honestly, I know that I don't, and I don't really want to have to met out an ongoing apologia for the next 4 months on this one thing alone. But, here we go anyway.............]

Still good to go...

I do hope it's not your neck to which you're referring. Especially since I think that although John Loftus is a very insightful guy, and while I feel his pangs of remorse over his past experiences and thought by which he came to derive the OTF, I still have to deconstruct his OTF all the same. Sometimes, life sucks like that, and I know how it can be to have to deal with other people, even with some who claim to be Christian but at the same time pull out their batons and start whacking any 'heretic' in arms length over the head.

Still ready when you are... If you like, I'm happy to start by asking you firstly, do you honestly care about knowing true things while discarding false things?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Great start opening with a dishonest statement - especially when I said nothing about you and in a moment, you'll confirm what I actually did suspect, to boot.

Well, I can't say I'm sure about that. If a God exists, then obviously it's in my best interest to know, and that's among my motivations. This still seems to be an avoiding of the conversation though, and more like a mounted defence of an apriori position rather than an honest assessment of our own position. What worries you so much about the OTF anyway?

well...it's basically a cheaper version of something I already have.

Great! Let's deconstruct the OTF then, see what these problems are, shall we?

Yes, we shall.

it seems you're good at tapdancing, especially while exuding condescention all the while... any reason why you're like this? It's almost as if you're posturing, and not really all that serious...

I've heard both the accusation of tapdancing and of being condescending from another, perhaps more reliable source. Or maybe you're just a cookie-cutter replica of him. I don't know. But you do know what they say, "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...it could be an atheist clone."

Of course, atheist NEVER condescend upon others (e.g. Richard Dawkins has never done so...) or expressed pugnaciousness or abrasiveness or rancor, right? Oh, and they're never, ever angry about Christians. Well, guess what? I sometimes get irritated with 'know-it-all' Christians, too; of course, 'know-it-all' atheists who are over confident of their epistemology tend to rankle me at least as much ...

But, we could make a deal. We could pretend to stop using inferences that another person is just being dis-dishonest from the get-go and, maybe, talk to each other like two intelligent human beings who would like to discuss the merits and demerits (both) of the OTF. Or not. I'll leave that choice up to you.

Still ready when you are... If you like, I'm happy to start by asking you firstly, do you honestly care about knowing true things while discarding false things?

Yes, believe it or not, I actually do care about such a thing as 'religious truth,' if it exists. And if it's at all possible to establish a human epistemological method of justification that is truly airtight, indefatigable, and impervious to any criticism, especially one that claims to treat of the epistemic structures of the Christian faith, whether pro or con, that would be great to learn about. Of course, I'll just be honest and upfront and say that when it comes to epistemological acts of justification on ANY side, I'm a bit skeptical about it, being the more or less the Post-modern critic that I am.

But yes, please lead the way: this is your show, not mine.

 

[mmksparbud]

Okay, so we can still agree then, that you have no more evidence than any other religious claim from any other religion?

I didn't say that! I said they have experiences too. I believe the bible. I believe in the fulfilled prophecies of it. I can't see how anyone reading Daniel not see that there were prophecies there about the 4 world powers, only Babylon was in power than--there are prophecies there that foretell the next three world powers, Medes-Persians, Greece and Rome. And that there would be no more world powers, though they would try, through marriage to consolidate, they could not. If all you are interested in reading is to find fault with God, than that is all you will find.

Well, he seems to change his mind all the time - do you still obey all the levitical laws, or has God changed his mind about wearing mixed fabric and eating shellfish?

Where is it written that these laws aside the Ten Commandments are only for the Jews? In fact, this being the case, the Ten Commandments are commanded to Israel as well - so they're all for Israel and by your logic, the Ten Commandments mustn't apply either. Otherwise, Jesus did explicitly state that all of the laws were to be obeyed until all in heaven and earth have come to pass (Matthew 5:17-19). Earth hasn't passed so either all of these laws apply, or none do. Which is it? If only the Ten Commandments apply, then why all the resistance against same-sex marriage and equality? Also, which ten commandments do you follow, either of the two similar commandments quoted at Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, or the other very different one actually called the Ten Commandments at Exodus 34:12-26?

These are related so will do the at the same time.
No He doesn't change His mind all the time. The fact is, He rarely does. His character, never changes.
As for the laws, He didn't change His mind--He had said in the old testament there would come a day when things would change and He would have a new covenant. That new covenant was fulfilled at the cross. The Levitical system was done away with, at His death, the Temple veil, an immensely large curtain was ripped from to bottom, exposing the Inner Holy Of Holies, signifying the end of the temple ceremonies. Many Christians include the 10 commandments with that--we do not. As I said, the Levitical laws were the only laws kept outside the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple. The 10 commandments were always kept inside the ark. The Ark was a representation of the throne of God. Jesus was naming the 10 commandments when He said they would not pass away--He did not name any of the Levitical laws. God's throne is sitting on the 10 commandments. Not on the Levitical laws.
The 10 commandments are the same. God wrote those with His own hand. The Levitical laws were written by Moses as dictated by God. When Moses came down the mountain, he was so incensed to find the children of Israel partying naked before a golden calf, in worship of it, that he threw down the tablets God had written and broke them. Exodus 34 was just telling of the fact that Moses had to go back up the mountain and get 2 new stones for God to rewrite them. They were the same 10 commandments. This chapter does not name them as Ex. 20 and Duet. do. Moses did not rewrite the Levitical laws for he had not broken those, those weren't written on stone, just the 10.

So Adam and Eve were never two actual people from which we are all descended from, and what my ancestors did or didn't do is not something I can be blamed for - but this aside, you just agreed that we can be us AND live a sinless existence for an eternity - why didn't God create us (or Adam and Eve if you really insist they were real people) with this heaven version of free will to begin with? Then there would've been no sin, no getting kicked out of the Garden, etc.

Some Christians claim them as purely allegorical--I do not in any way agree with that. They were real and they are whom we are descendent from. As such we have inherited their fallen, sinful nature. That is how our minds are bent now--towards sin, it is natural for us now. I already answered the rest of that---God made us with free will---true love can not be forced. He could not make us to be unable to not choose Him. You have children. You knew before you had them that come about age 13--they will turn on you and think you are pretty dumb and not want to do anything you want them to. You still had them, you will still love them. It is a chance every parent takes. He did not make robots. He made us with the power to walk away from His protection. He set in place a way back to Him.

You just stated earlier that "Jesus became our High Priest and no earthly Priest is now needed" - if God were real, his presence would mean we all would be crystal clear on his existence and we would of course all be of one religion world-wide. I contend that were such a supernatural being real, we wouldn't even be having this conversation let alone fielding apologetics over why the almighty creator of the universe needs 10% of our pay to cover earthly men peddling his wares. This doesn't make sense.

Like you, there are many who do not want what He offers. They block their hearts from what He says, they do not read the bible, if they do they read only what they want or only what they feel is critical of Him They will not listen to what He says. That is your right--He gave you that freedom. But His son is the only one that can protect you from the power of the Light of God that destroys sin which will destroy you. He won't force and you do not want Him. He calls everyone. Up to you whether you will listen or not. When you do not want Him, then what He says will not make sense. What you say, will not make sense to that 15 year old rebellious kid, either.

Great! then no belief in this has to be fabricated, we can just live our lives well and morally and we're good, right? I couldn't accept that an innocent person was murdered on my behalf for sins I didn't commit anyway... that's just barbaric and needless.

What about those of us who just aren't convinced that any Gods exist, let alone your God?

He paid the price--for everybody. The only thing you have to do is believe in Him. You do not want to believe in Him and His word--then you pay the price. Ig you do not accept His sinless, innocent sacrifice, you have no way to protect yourself from your end. Have a good life n this earth, for it will be all you have. Which is what you believe anyway--so you will still have your wish. I believe otherwise. If I am proven wrong--I've not missed out on anything. If I am right--I get eternal life in a wonderful, sinless world that has God smiling on me.

Well,I guess he should be, just as anyone should be - I feel the same way about the innocent first borns of Egypt that were murdered, the Caananite infants that were also murdered, the Midianite virgin girls that were being diveed up while the blood of their murdered brothers and parents were still warm, etc. Your God seemed pretty pleased about all that though.

God had to do what He did to protect His children, those that did believe and follow Him, from those that wanted to wipe them out. He knew what those children would grew up to do. They almost succeeded when the Israelites did not obey and let some Amalekites go. You want to believe something else---go right ahead.

Isaiah 45:7 says God Did create evil. If Lucifer was created Perfect and became evil (no matter the reason), then it's because God wanted him to be, having created him perfect for the role God had him fulfill to begin with. Otherwise, he couldn't have been perfect, I don't see how you can get around that.

LOL! You are bound and determined to view Him as you want to--evil. OK--believe what you want. All I can do is state what the bible says---He created Him perfect until sin was found in him, Satan created his own sinful nature by dwelling on his desire to be God, to be worshipped, because of his beauty he became vain, he just dwelt on himself. God gave him the freedom to go his own way. And he took 1/3 of the angels with him. God then had a choice--wipe him and his followers out, or let it play out to its inevitable and for the rest of the universe to see. To have wiped them out would have led to His angels following Him out of fear. He let the universe see what his way led to. It led to sin, to a totally perverted man, to having His own Son die in order to get us back. Don't want it---you don't have to take it--pay the price of yourself.

Well, so you say, but we've already repeatedly demonstrated that you have no more reason to worship your God than any other believer has for worshipping theirs. An outsider to all of your religions can't tell the difference.

We have His word, You have His Holy Spirit to lead you if you listen, If you don't want to--that is your choice. His word is enough--reject it if you want.

Now--could we possibly cut these questions down just a might?? I am loosing track when I go back to see where I left Off! Plus--I have medical issues, I have numbness in my fingers which makes them very difficult to go where I want them to! I end up hitting the wrong keys, and 2 at a time and have to proof read about 3-4 times and I still miss errors!! It takes me forever to answer this many! I have to take a break now.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

well...it's basically a cheaper version of something I already have.

Perhaps you overpaid?

Yes, we shall.

along with your more expensive version too, I'm interested...

I've heard both the accusation of tapdancing and of being condescending from another, perhaps more reliable source. Or maybe you're just a cookie-cutter replica of him. I don't know. But you do know what they say, "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...it could be an atheist clone."

...or, you could have two independent lines of evidence to a deeper issue you choose to overlook in yourself?

Of course, atheist NEVER condescend upon others (e.g. Richard Dawkins has never done so...) or expressed pugnaciousness or abrasiveness or rancor, right?

Oh, they do...

Oh, and they're never, ever angry about Christians.

Well, I know ex christians can often get angry at christians...

Well, guess what? I sometimes get irritated with 'know-it-all' Christians, too; of course, 'know-it-all' atheists who are over confident of their epistemology tend to rankle me at least as much ...

still with the snyde digs?

But, we could make a deal. We could pretend to stop using inferences that another person is just being dis-dishonest from the get-go and, maybe, talk to each other like two intelligent human beings who would like to discuss the merits and demerits (both) of the OTF. Or not. I'll leave that choice up to you.

We Could! seems like a great way to start, so let's start there.

Yes, believe it or not, I actually do care about such a thing as 'religious truth,' if it exists. And if it's at all possible to establish a human epistemological method of justification that is truly airtight, indefatigable, and impervious to any criticism, especially one that claims to treat of the epistemic structures of the Christian faith, whether pro or con, that would be great to learn about. Of course, I'll just be honest and upfront and say that when it comes to epistemological acts of justification on ANY side, I'm a bit skeptical about it, being the more or less the Post-modern critic that I am.

But yes, please lead the way: this is your show, not mine.

Cool, so firstly, tell me about your epistemology, in particular, let's start with your standards of evidence. We can apply the outsider's test of faith as we progress, and you can point out any issues you feel arise as we go. fair enough?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps you overpaid?

...there is that possibility, but I'm not sure I'll get all Bayesian over it just yet. Maybe never. Yeah, "never" sounds good!

along with your more expensive version too, I'm interested...

You might not believe this, but somewhere on the continuum of religious belief and disbelief, I likely qualify as a skeptic on some level. Actually, I take that back. I'm partially skeptical, and my skepticism, as far as it goes, eschews Direct Realism and floats somewhere between Critical Realism and Representative Realism. It's a mess. But then I remind myself, so is most people's epistemology!

...or, you could have two independent lines of evidence to a deeper issue you choose to overlook in yourself?

Oh, I'm quite sure there's something deeper here. It's just after looking into the Void for as long as I have, one just kind of starts to think, "Meh, if you've seen one epistemological void, you've seen them all." So, I try to avoid voids, now. That way I suffer from less existential crises, cognitive dissonance, and other forms of bad faith and Sartrean nausea. By the way, I hate to ask you this, but do you have a bag? I might need it the further we get into this discussion together.

Oh, they do...

Mmmmm, Hmmmm.

Well, I know ex christians can often get angry at christians...

Yes, I found that to be the case during my short jaunt over on one of those "other" websites a while back.

still with the snyde digs?

Ok. I think I've gotten beyond the snydeness now. I hope. That's what philosophical hankies are for anyway.

We Could! seems like a great way to start, so let's start there.

Cool, so firstly, tell me about your epistemology, in particular, let's start with your standards of evidence. We can apply the outsider's test of faith as we progress, and you can point out any issues you feel arise as we go. fair enough?

Ok. You asked for it; and since the bicycle is already invented, I personally don't want to be assigned the task of doing it again, SO I'm just going to let Jans Zimmermann give you a very brief 10 point summary tour of how I handle epistemic and other mental states of evaluation. So, here we go!: [But, but....that's not epistemology! Nope. It ain't!]

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

...there is that possibility, but I'm not sure I'll get all Bayesian over it just yet. Maybe never. Yeah, "never" sounds good!

You might not believe this, but somewhere on the continuum of religious belief and disbelief, I likely qualify as a skeptic on some level. Actually, I take that back. I'm partially skeptical, and my skepticism, as far as it goes, eschews Direct Realism and floats somewhere between Critical Realism and Representative Realism. It's a mess. But then I remind myself, so is most people's epistemology!

Oh, I'm quite sure there's something deeper here. It's just after looking into the Void for as long as I have, one just kind of starts to think, "Meh, if you've seen one epistemological void, you've seen them all." So, I try to avoid voids, now. That way I suffer from less existential crises, cognitive dissonance, and other forms of bad faith and Sartrean nausea. By the way, I hate to ask you this, but do you have a bag? I might need it the further we get into this discussion together.

Mmmmm, Hmmmm.

Yes, I found that to be the case during my short jaunt over on one of those "other" websites a while back.

Ok. I think I've gotten beyond the snydeness now. I hope. That's what philosophical hankies are for anyway.

Ok. You asked for it; and since the bicycle is already invented, I personally don't want to be assigned the task of doing it again, SO I'm just going to let Jans Zimmermann give you a very brief 10 point summary tour of how I handle epistemic and other mental states of evaluation. So, here we go!: [But, but....that's not epistemology! Nope. It ain't!]

Cool, as much as it's good to get an idea on where you start, I was hoping to begin prior to this point - that is to say, could we establish your level of acceptable evidence prior to any interpreting of said evidence? For example, if I were to give you a position (not even a religious text just yet) that makes various claims, what tests can you do to evaluate the authenticity of such a claim making position, before any hermeneutics of the claims takes place?

Do you believe that the evidence for a claim should be proportional to the claim being made? I guess what I'm after is a way to analyse any claim to even-handedly identify at least a most likely "true" claim from any false claims that are made, I would aspire to achieve such a goal by starting from a position with as few assumptions as it is possible to have. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Cool, as much as it's good to get an idea on where you start, I was hoping to begin prior to this point - that is to say, could we establish your level of acceptable evidence prior to any interpreting of said evidence?

There's another gestalt tucked away in there, B.e.c. Moreover, I'm not going to allow the assumptions of any one framework to be applied before the framework itself is at least questioned and sifted first, especially not that of Foundationalism and/or Evidentialism until we've decided that we have a viable, functional, accurate and real (rather than imagined) epistemological structure that can apply to religion in the SAME, IDENTICAL way that we apply it for, say, science. But then, to do this, we'd have to do know and understand the nature of the evidence(s) we're trying to investigate---because evidence in one field isn't always or by necessity reducible down or similar to that of evidence in another field.

And so, the very tedious work of rummaging through all of that nasty Philosophy of Religion and Religious Language "nonsense" will be needed, as entangling ourselves with the field of the Philosophy of Science, as well as looking at the relevant sub-field of N.O.S.; and I suppose the Philosophy of History and historiography will need some combing through, too. Whew.........it sounds like a work out!

Now, about that idea of my expressing my level of "acceptable" evidence, are you asking about how I think the work of David Eller, Valerie Tarico, and Jason Long fit into the intersubjective, hermeneutical contours of the O.T.F., or are you trying to posit a tangent here that I'm not really seeing in John Loftus' work? (p. 82)

For example, if I were to give you a position (not even a religious text just yet) that makes various claims, what tests can you do to evaluate the authenticity of such a claim making position, before any hermeneutics of the claims takes place?

You've misunderstood, or dare I say, misinterpreted what hermeneutics is in this case. I'm not talking about biblical hermeneutics, but rather philosophical hermenuetics ... which comes as part and parcel along with and during one's search for a usable epistemology by which to attempt to evaluate one's religious beliefs, that is, if that same one happens to be interested in that kind of thing.

Do you believe that the evidence for a claim should be proportional to the claim being made? I guess what I'm after is a way to analyse any claim to even-handedly identify at least a most likely "true" claim from any false claims that are made, I would aspire to achieve such a goal by starting from a position with as few assumptions as it is possible to have. Wouldn't you agree?

Ok. Are we still dealing with the O.T.F. of John Loftus, or are you jumping over to something more...oh, I don't know...appropriate to S.E.'s (i.e. Street Epistemologists) like Anthony Magnabosco (a fairly intelligent and intellectual chap). If we're going down the other side of the "test" here in S.E. terms, then I'll want to deconstruct Peter Bogghossian's little "manual," too. By the way, anyone tell you that your thought processes sound like, or at least echo, those of Anthony?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I didn't say that! I said they have experiences too.

Yes, which are for all we know, the same as your own experiences, so until we can find a differentiator, I have no way to tell the difference.

I believe the bible. I believe in the fulfilled prophecies of it.

Well, even if there were fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, it doesn't tell us anything about the cause of the prophecy - And then, what about the unfulfilled prophecies in the bible?

I can't see how anyone reading Daniel not see that there were prophecies there about the 4 world powers, only Babylon was in power than--there are prophecies there that foretell the next three world powers, Medes-Persians, Greece and Rome.

Did this prophecy mention them by name? What was the significance of these 4 world powers, why wasn't China mentioned as one of these world powers? After all, China was indeed a world power at the time (and in fact from as early as 8500bce), they had governance, civilisations and techmologies that surpassed the middle east in many ways, yet your Bible had no idea they even existed. Dynasties in Chinese history - Wikipedia

And that there would be no more world powers, though they would try, through marriage to consolidate, they could not. If all you are interested in reading is to find fault with God, than that is all you will find.

I want to know what is True. If a God is True then I want to know this and this should be self-evident. Wouldn't you agree?

On world powers, is it your contention that there are no world powers now? US, Russia and China aren't world powers?

This is the problem, if you say these are your evidence for God and they are factually inaccurate, then how is that not evidence against such a proposition?

No He doesn't change His mind all the time. The fact is, He rarely does. His character, never changes.

Odd then that in your interpretation, he changed his mind on at least 603 of the 613 levitical laws - he used to walk around in the Garden of Eden, now nobody sees him ever (in any verifiable way, at least), he used to hate everyone that wasn't his favourite tribe and regularly ordered or caused their indiscriminant deaths in an often brutal and inhumane way, now he apparently loves everyone, etc. That seems to be more change and less unchanging by orders of magnitude.

As for the laws, He didn't change His mind--He had said in the old testament there would come a day when things would change and He would have a new covenant. That new covenant was fulfilled at the cross. The Levitical system was done away with, at His death, the Temple veil, an immensely large curtain was ripped from to bottom, exposing the Inner Holy Of Holies, signifying the end of the temple ceremonies.

Could I get a citation on this please? I'm still reading Matthew 5:17-19 as a specific contention that the least of all these levitical laws are to be followed to the letter, not just the ten commandments given he was still a Jew and still alive, so everything was still under the levitical law, obviously he hadn't been crucified yet, therefore the old covenant was still in full effect. So how do you know that these old laws don't count anymore, anyway, where is it written? Wouldn't that do away with the reason many christians oppose same sex marriage and abortion rights (among many other christian points of contention)?

Also, I still don't know which of the 10 commandments you refer to, the two similar commandments quoted at Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, or the other ones at Exodus 34:12-26? Here, let me show you the differences:

Commandment 1

Exodus 20

2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.​

Exodus 34

10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the Lord: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.
11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.​

Commandment 2

Exodus 20

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.​

Exodus 34

12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.​

Commandment 3

Exodus 20

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.​

Exodus 34

17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.​

Commandment 4

Exodus 20
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exodus 34

18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.​

Commandment 5

Exodus 20

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.​

Exodus 34

19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.​

Commandment 6

Exodus 20

13 Thou shalt not kill.​

Exodus 34

21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.​

Commandment 7

Exodus 20

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.​

Exodus 34

22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.​

Commandment 8

Exodus 20

15 Thou shalt not steal.​

Exodus 34

23 Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.
24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice in the year.​

Commandment 9

Exodus 20

16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.​

Exodus 34

25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.​

Commandment 10

Exodus 20

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.​

Exodus 34

26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.​

Just so you know - it's the Exodus 34 set of Ten Commandments that would be in the Ark of the Covenant, not the Exodus 20 version. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Many Christians include the 10 commandments with that--we do not. As I said, the Levitical laws were the only laws kept outside the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple. The 10 commandments were always kept inside the ark. The Ark was a representation of the throne of God. Jesus was naming the 10 commandments when He said they would not pass away--He did not name any of the Levitical laws. God's throne is sitting on the 10 commandments. Not on the Levitical laws.

Jesus didn't list all ten commandments. As above, Exodus 34 version of the Ten Commandments would be the version in the Ark of the Covenant.

The 10 commandments are the same. God wrote those with His own hand. The Levitical laws were written by Moses as dictated by God. When Moses came down the mountain, he was so incensed to find the children of Israel partying naked before a golden calf, in worship of it, that he threw down the tablets God had written and broke them. Exodus 34 was just telling of the fact that Moses had to go back up the mountain and get 2 new stones for God to rewrite them. They were the same 10 commandments. This chapter does not name them as Ex. 20 and Duet. do. Moses did not rewrite the Levitical laws for he had not broken those, those weren't written on stone, just the 10.

Yes it does - Exodus 34:28 - "And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.", neither Exodus 20, nor Deuteronomy 5 versions state they are the Ten Commandments, where Exodus 34 does.

Some Christians claim them as purely allegorical--I do not in any way agree with that. They were real and they are whom we are descendent from. As such we have inherited their fallen, sinful nature. That is how our minds are bent now--towards sin, it is natural for us now.

Well, genetics shows we are not descended from just two humans around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, nor that we suffered through a bottleneck of just 8 people approximately 4300 years ago either.

I already answered the rest of that---God made us with free will---true love can not be forced. He could not make us to be unable to not choose Him. You have children. You knew before you had them that come about age 13--they will turn on you and think you are pretty dumb and not want to do anything you want them to. You still had them, you will still love them. It is a chance every parent takes. He did not make robots. He made us with the power to walk away from His protection. He set in place a way back to Him.

The problem is that he refuses to provide verifiable evidence for his existence - which is akin to Lying. My children have a very, very good grasp on the reality of my love - they aren't left to attribute vague unverifiable feelings to my invisible presence, nor are they left with my alleged writings to them instructing them to be good and pay my representatives otherwise here's a list of my punishments.... No matter the reason, to allow religious people all over the world to have faith in a completely different God for an entire lifetime, allowing them to die and not point this out, just doesn't make sense. Is your God not capable? After all, Lucifer knew full well about God and still had free will, same with Adam and Eve, Moses, Noah, Paul, etc. Wouldn't it just make sense for all of us to have a damascus road experience when we come of age? It's only fair that we are equipped with all of the facts to make the decision which would affect our alleged eternal soul. To allow more believers on this planet to believe in other religions that aren't your God's religion is too far fetched for a God that allegedly loves us and wants a relationship with us.

Like you, there are many who do not want what He offers. They block their hearts from what He says, they do not read the bible, if they do they read only what they want or only what they feel is critical of Him They will not listen to what He says.

This is factually incorrect - who are you to tell me what I want? Of course I want there to be a God, one who will offer a paradise for an eternity for my soul - the problem is, pretty much every religion offers this as well as threatens some kind of eternal damnation or annihilation at death for not believing in them. Why do all the other religions have just as much circumstantial evidence, histories and verifiable prophecies as your religion does? By arbitrarily picking one of these God(s) and Religions as you have, I might be condemning myself to an eternity of damnation or annihilation by the real creator God(s) of this universe.

Also, since you've admitted your God doesn't talk to you directly, you're not listening to to what he says either, you're listening to what another fallible human is reading of what a number of anonymous author wrote down thousands of years ago. Christianity (and all the Abrahamic religions with arguably Islam being the exception) doesn't even have their originals. There are other religions that do have the originals of their sacred texts, some from hundreds or thousands of years before any of the abrahamic religions had any writings. If your God were real, then why do other older religions have their originals and the Abrahamic religions don't?

That is your right--He gave you that freedom. But His son is the only one that can protect you from the power of the Light of God that destroys sin which will destroy you.

This is still a claim read to you from a number of writings from anonymous authors from thousands of years ago. How do I verify that claim without verifying every other claim made by every other religion?

He won't force and you do not want Him. He calls everyone. Up to you whether you will listen or not. When you do not want Him, then what He says will not make sense. What you say, will not make sense to that 15 year old rebellious kid, either.

Are you saying that God isn't capable of making me aware he's talking to me? Is he not powerful enough to make himself known clearly like he did Paul?
Your God is calling me as loudly and clearly as Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is (may his noodly appendage touch me). As far as a rebellious 15 year old doesn't listen, that 15 year old still knows I exist 100% and I'm not even close to being a God. Surely if I can be known to exist unequivocally, then your God could do a better Job, no?

He paid the price--for everybody. The only thing you have to do is believe in Him. You do not want to believe in Him and His word--then you pay the price. Ig you do not accept His sinless, innocent sacrifice, you have no way to protect yourself from your end. Have a good life n this earth, for it will be all you have. Which is what you believe anyway--so you will still have your wish.

I have no way of knowing your God even exists let alone sacrificed himself to himself to create a loophole for laws he himself put in place by which he alone judges us.

I believe otherwise. If I am proven wrong--I've not missed out on anything. If I am right--I get eternal life in a wonderful, sinless world that has God smiling on me.

No, if you are Wrong and there is another God(s) who is the actual creator of the Universe, then you've spent an entire lifetime angering that other God and will probably go to their eternity of torture, or oblivion, or annihilation (whichever is applicable) where I'll have at least some chance having withheld belief until I was certain I had the right God(s).

God had to do what He did to protect His children, those that did believe and follow Him, from those that wanted to wipe them out. He knew what those children would grew up to do. They almost succeeded when the Israelites did not obey and let some Amalekites go. You want to believe something else---go right ahead.

I want to so much believe there's a God and an afterlife, but your God seems more like a tribal deity than the creator of everything - this "not-very-angry-for-long" God of yours seems to hate quite a lot of his creation, demanding to or destroying first hand quite a lot of his created children who seem to have no idea he existed. Point is, your God is supposed to be an omnipotent supernatural being who seemed to have no idea how to get through to his beloved children, no matter who they were (Caananites, Amaikites, Midianites, Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans, Greeks, etc.) and instead threw tantrums which by today's standards is abhhorent. By contrast, we have an international tribunal that lays out the rights of humanity afforded to all, it oversees and prosecutes warcrimes and it seems us mere mortals have been able to do a better job of humanity than your allegedly "loving" God ever did.

LOL! You are bound and determined to view Him as you want to--evil.

No, saying he created evil doesn't necessarily make him evil - it was probably all those murdering of innocent babies, genocides and diveeing up virgin girls as plunder that did that.

All I can do is state what the bible says---He created Him perfect until sin was found in him, Satan created his own sinful nature by dwelling on his desire to be God, to be worshipped, because of his beauty he became vain, he just dwelt on himself. God gave him the freedom to go his own way. And he took 1/3 of the angels with him.

Again, the Bible never said "Thou wast perfect from the day that thou wast created", it said "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.". Why was heaven such a bad place that 1/3rd of all the Angels agreed with Lucifer and turned against God anyway? Did God create a great used car salesman in Lucifer?

God then had a choice--wipe him and his followers out, or let it play out to its inevitable and for the rest of the universe to see. To have wiped them out would have led to His angels following Him out of fear.

That wasn't a problem when God wiped out the Amalakites, Caananites, Midianites, etc. do you think that created a little stress among the uncertain Hebrews & Israelites that would cause them to follow out of fear?

He let the universe see what his way led to. It led to sin, to a totally perverted man, to having His own Son die in order to get us back. Don't want it---you don't have to take it--pay the price of yourself.

God can just change the rules regardless what I believe. If he wants me to believe that he came to earth to sacrifice himself to himself for whatever reason, then he not only knows how to do that, but is perfectly capable of doing so, and has allegedly done so on numerous occasions already. His love and forgiveness is not contingent on my belief in unsupportable claims, I can forgive any number and manner of people without their acceptance of said forgiveness, let alone their belief in some unsupportable claim I might make.

We have His word, You have His Holy Spirit to lead you if you listen, If you don't want to--that is your choice. His word is enough--reject it if you want.

How do you know it's his word that we have? How do you know it's a holy spirit, let alone a particular holy spirit of a particular religion - again, any number of other religions are all claiming the same divine guidance for the truth of their God(s). How can we tell, you don't seem to have an answer for this other than to start with the apriori belief it's true, just like all the other religious folk of other religions do with their religions. How could there be so many versions of Christianity if your God's word is so clear and unambiguous?

Now--could we possibly cut these questions down just a might?? I am loosing track when I go back to see where I left Off! Plus--I have medical issues, I have numbness in my fingers which makes them very difficult to go where I want them to! I end up hitting the wrong keys, and 2 at a time and have to proof read about 3-4 times and I still miss errors!! It takes me forever to answer this many! I have to take a break now.

-_- yep, sorry, I have so many questions and every time you answer one question, three more pop up because of it... I guess we could go back to finding out how you come to your beliefs but you don't seem to have an answer for that other than you assume it to be true to start with and never reasoned through other religions besides yours, or even critically considered the claims of your own.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

There's another gestalt tucked away in there, B.e.c. Moreover, I'm not going to allow the assumption of justification to be done that supposedly comes by way of any one particular epistemological framework in and through the door, especially not automatically that of Foundationalism and/or Evidentialism until we've decided that we have a viable, functional, accurate and real (rather than imagined) epistemological theory or framework that can apply to religion in the SAME, IDENTICAL way that we do for, say, science. But then, to do this, we'd have to do know and understand the nature of the evidence we're trying to investigate---because one evidence in one field isn't always or by necessity reducible down or similar to that in another field.

I beg to differ - Science has a radical history of success in narrowing in on true things about this reality and it is based on a very solid foundation of evidentialism that demonstrates to be very useful. If we're looking to find out true things about reality, then I'd be interested to hear of a better way to do it. The only way I could see this being a problem is if you're making claims about something that doesn't manifest in reality in any way whatsoever. If something doesn't manifest in reality in some way, then do we really have merit to claim it exists?

And so, the very tedious work of rummaging through all of that nasty Philosophy of Religion and of Religious Language nonsense will be needed,

No it won't - unless you can determine some way to discern the right "religion" ahead of this process - otherwise your hermeneutics is dead in the water for all its worth. We still need a way to determine which philosophical underpinnings you want to afford it and how it applies equally to all the religious writings out there and not just your particular religious view alone.

as well as the field of the Philosophy of Science, along with a look at the relevant sub-field of N.O.S., and along with the Philosophy of History and historiography. whew..............................it sounds like a work out.

I'll be interested to see your outlook in these areas then, especially in light of how it applies to discerning the reality of a religion, but I still feel you're looking to overcomplicate a fairly trivial application of an epistemology framework. I'm happy to entertain your ideas if you feel it's required, but I will probe if I feel you're overstepping what I would consider fundamental requirements - even if only so I might understand why.

Now about that idea of my level of "acceptable" evidence, are you asking about how I think the work of David Eller, Valerie Tarico, and Jason Long fit into the intersubjective, hermeneutical contours of the O.T.F., or are you trying to posit a tangent here that I'm not really seeing just straight off in John Loftus' work? (p. 82)

Nope, though they do contribute to a holistic perspective in John's original OTF, I'm still hoping to find what you
would consider acceptable evidence, and to what degree or value you'd attribute to the different types of acceptable evidence

You've misunderstood, or dare I say, misinterpreted what hermeneutics is in this case. I'm not talking about biblical hermeneutics, but rather philosophical hermenuetics ... which comes as part and parcel along with and during one's search for a usable epistemology by which to attempt to evaluate one's religious beliefs, that is, if that same one happens to be interested in that kind of thing.

I figured this to be the case given we weren't discussing the content or form of the Bible just yet, but I'm still not sure how even philosophical hermeneutics would apply - feel free to present a case for it, I guess - same thing though, I'll be asking questions along the way, even if so I might understand your reasons...

Ok. Are we still dealing with the O.T.F. of John Loftus, or are you jumping over to something more...oh, I don't know...appropriate to S.E.'s (i.e. Street Epistemologists) like Anthony Magnabosco (a fairly intelligent and intellectual chap). If we're going down the other side of the "test" here in S.E. terms, then I'll want to deconstruct Peter Bogghossian's little "manual," too. By the way, anyone tell you that your thought processes sound like, or at least echo, those of Anthony?

Well, I'm talking about the basal epistemological position we have before we start. Magnabosco's work is probably a more apt position, but even so, we're pushing past his glass ceiling and exploring the merits of (in this case, your) religious positions rather than just reducing from 100% conviction in a deeply held belief. This still requires an epistemological foundation, and I guess I'm interested to find out about how you view evidence so we can start exploring. If you want to apply philosophical hermeneutics, then I'm happy to start there with you to see what benefits (if any) it brings.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well, even if there were fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, it doesn't tell us anything about the cause of the prophecy - And then, what about the unfulfilled prophecies in the bible?

Cause of the prophecy? It's a foretelling of what is to come! What in the world you mean--cause?
The only unfulfilled ones, are the ones that are yet to come.

Did this prophecy mention them by name? What was the significance of these 4 world powers, why wasn't China mentioned as one of these world powers? After all, China was indeed a world power at the time (and in fact from as early as 8500bce), they had governance, civilisations and techmologies that surpassed the middle east in many ways, yet your Bible had no idea they even existed. Dynasties in Chinese history - Wikipedia

Medo-Persia and Greece by name. Bible prophecies are mainly dealing with things from the middle east, Europe. China did not conquer the Middle east and Europe. It also doesn't mention the Mayan Empire--not pertinent to what Israel and Jesus is about. It does, however, prophecy America--not by name.

I want to know what is True. If a God is True then I want to know this and this should be self-evident. Wouldn't you agree?

On world powers, is it your contention that there are no world powers now? US, Russia and China aren't world powers?

This is the problem, if you say these are your evidence for God and they are factually inaccurate, then how is that not evidence against such a proposition?

Again, USA, Russia, China have not conquered the Middle East/Europe. No one has ever united Europe, Hitler was the last to try.

Odd then that in your interpretation, he changed his mind on at least 603 of the 613 levitical laws - he used to walk around in the Garden of Eden, now nobody sees him ever (in any verifiable way, at least), he used to hate everyone that wasn't his favourite tribe and regularly ordered or caused their indiscriminant deaths in an often brutal and inhumane way, now he apparently loves everyone, etc. That seems to be more change and less unchanging by orders of magnitude.

I already said, He did not change His mind, He already mentioned in the OT that there would come a time when a new covenant would come into play. The first was with the Levitical priests, sacrifices---all of which pointed to Jesus. When Jesus came, the old covenant was done away with at the cross as Jesus then became our High Priest---He is the sacrifice the old had pointed to.
Yes--He was face to face with Adam and Eve in the Garden, Then they fell and sin separated them from Him. He no longer could meet them face to face-sin can not live in the presence of God and they would have died. He then spoke directly to them. When that, too was rejected by man--He then spoke through the Holy spirit --until Abraham and Moses. He spoke directly to them. He has occasionally spoken to His prophets directly. Even His voice is power and not easily tolerated by sinful man.
There you go again. He chose the tribe of Israel to be descended from. He then had to protect them from those who would wipe them out---Satan also knew they were His chosen people from which He would descend and tried to wipe them out. Besides their being totally depraved and sinful--which I've already mentioned several times, sacrificing their children to idols and inappropriate behavior with animals and pagan orgies----those that had to be eliminated were trying to kill all the Jews-He was protecting his people. Don't like it----too bad. If you had been a Jew, you would have thought otherwise.
He always has loved everyone--but everyone hasn't always loved Him. The parents of Jeffrey Dahmer loved him--but he was a monster that had to be out down. God has to make that choice sometimes.

Could I get a citation on this please? I'm still reading Matthew 5:17-19 as a specific contention that the least of all these levitical laws are to be followed to the letter, not just the ten commandments given he was still a Jew and still alive, so everything was still under the levitical law, obviously he hadn't been crucified yet, therefore the old covenant was still in full effect. So how do you know that these old laws don't count anymore, anyway, where is it written? Wouldn't that do away with the reason many christians oppose same sex marriage and abortion rights (among many other christian points of contention)?

Also, I still don't know which of the 10 commandments you refer to, the two similar commandments quoted at Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, or the other ones at Exodus 34:12-26? Here, let me show you the differences:

Commandment 1
Exodus 20
2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.Exodus 34
10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the Lord: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.
11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.
Commandment 2
Exodus 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.Exodus 34
12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
Commandment 3
Exodus 20
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.Exodus 34
17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
Commandment 4
Exodus 20
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exodus 34
18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
Commandment 5
Exodus 20
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.Exodus 34
19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
Commandment 6
Exodus 20
13 Thou shalt not kill.Exodus 34
21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
Commandment 7
Exodus 20
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.Exodus 34
22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
Commandment 8
Exodus 20
15 Thou shalt not steal.Exodus 34
23 Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.
24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice in the year.
Commandment 9
Exodus 20
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.Exodus 34
25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
Commandment 10
Exodus 20
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.Exodus 34
26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
Just so you know - it's the Exodus 34 set of Ten Commandments that would be in the Ark of the Covenant, not the Exodus 20 version. Wouldn't you agree?

LOL. You think I haven't read those?? Why do you ask what I have already answered? The 10 commandments are the 10 commandments-period. There is no difference between them. You are putting something that was not labeled as the original 10 with the 10. Ex 34 --I already said--is just a summation of the fact the Moses had broken the original set of stone tablets and he had to go back and God rewrote them---He rewrote the same original 10 as in Ex., 20--those are the 10--period. Those are the ones in the Ark. Do what you will with your theory. The 1st 4 of the 10 deal with our duty to God, the last 6 of the 10 deal with our duty to man. Jesus summed them up thus:
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

To this day--the Jews have no trouble in knowing the 10---Ex 20.


OT:

Jer_31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
er 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

NT:
Heb_8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb_8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Heb_12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

I've got some killer cinnamon rolls to make. Deal with the rest later.

 

[mmksparbud]

Yes it does - Exodus 34:28 - "And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.", neither Exodus 20, nor Deuteronomy 5 versions state they are the Ten Commandments, where Exodus 34 does.

Exo 34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

Well, genetics shows we are not descended from just two humans around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, nor that we suffered through a bottleneck of just 8 people approximately 4300 years ago either.

Well, they don't have any DNA from Adam and Eve or from Noah and his children. Theirs would have been far more diverse. They had in them all that was need for all the different races--and no--of course the bible doesn't say so!

The problem is that he refuses to provide verifiable evidence for his existence - which is akin to Lying. My children have a very, very good grasp on the reality of my love - they aren't left to attribute vague unverifiable feelings to my invisible presence, nor are they left with my alleged writings to them instructing them to be good and pay my representatives otherwise here's a list of my punishments.... No matter the reason, to allow religious people all over the world to have faith in a completely different God for an entire lifetime, allowing them to die and not point this out, just doesn't make sense. Is your God not capable? After all,
Lucifer knew full well about God and still had free will, same with Adam and Eve, Moses, Noah, Paul, etc. Wouldn't it just make sense for all of us to have a damascus road experience when we come of age? It's only fair that we are equipped with all of the facts to make the decision which would affect our alleged eternal soul. To allow more believers on this planet to believe in other religions that aren't your God's religion is too far fetched for a God that allegedly loves us and wants a relationship with us.

No--He just is wanting us to have faith in Him. Don't have it?--oh, well, I do. Adam and Eve had everything your kids do. They chose to disregard His word, that caused the separation. He can't show Himself to us--we would die immediately. You have all the same facts as millions of others have had---as I have had---what you do with them is up to you.

This is factually incorrect - who are you to tell me what I want? Of course I want there to be a God, one who will offer a paradise for an eternity for my soul - the problem is, pretty much every religion offers this as well as threatens some kind of eternal damnation or annihilation at death for not believing in them. Why do all the other religions have just as much circumstantial evidence, histories and verifiable prophecies as your religion does? By arbitrarily picking one of these God(s) and Religions as you have, I might be condemning myself to an eternity of damnation or annihilation by the real creator God(s) of this universe.

Also, since you've admitted your God doesn't talk to you directly, you're not listening to to what he says either, you're listening to what another fallible human is reading of what a number of anonymous author wrote down thousands of years ago. Christianity (and all the Abrahamic religions with arguably Islam being the exception) doesn't even have their originals. There are other religions that do have the originals of their sacred texts, some from hundreds or thousands of years before any of the abrahamic religions had any writings. If your God were real, then why do other older religions have their originals and the Abrahamic religions don't?

He gave you a brain--if you really want to know--ask Him. You can do the same thing I did and millions of others have done--compare. You prefer something else--that's up to you. There are millions that have the same information you do, the same bible, and they have chosen it over the others--if you don't see it--it is your choice.
And I never said He didn't talk to me directly. I said I do not hear an audible voice---I have this thought--it is as though He is talking, but it is not audible, just in my head. Like when you hear a voice that says don't go there, don't do that, or run away---same thing.
I don't know what originals there are of others--I know that originally, everything was verbal communication. It was a while before they needed to write things down. The first people were not some lowlife forms sitting around the fire grunting and chewing on raw bones---these people were created perfect, they had brains that were far beyond ours. They were, essentially, total savants, without any idiot part. However, intelligence and wisdom are not the same thing.

Are you saying that God isn't capable of making me aware he's talking to me? Is he not powerful enough to make himself known clearly like he did Paul?
Your God is calling me as loudly and clearly as Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is (may his noodly appendage touch me). As far as a rebellious 15 year old doesn't listen, that 15 year old still knows I exist 100% and I'm not even close to being a God. Surely if I can be known to exist unequivocally, then your God could do a better Job, no?

Yes-He is able. and you are just as able to totally block Him out if you want. He is not going to force you to believe. He is not going to force you to listen to Him. I can not know what you have experienced, for all I know, He has spoken to you countless times, and you have turned away. Again, you have the same information millions of others have had---Your choice. I do know this

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.


We hear and see what we want to. You have to read the bible for yourself and make your own decision.

No, if you are Wrong and there is another God(s) who is the actual creator of the Universe, then you've spent an entire lifetime angering that other God and will probably go to their eternity of torture, or oblivion, or annihilation (whichever is applicable) where I'll have at least some chance having withheld belief until I was certain I had the right God(s).

Well---point Him out to me.

I want to so much believe there's a God and an afterlife, but your God seems more like a tribal deity than the creator of everything - this "not-very-angry-for-long" God of yours seems to hate quite a lot of his creation, demanding to or destroying first hand quite a lot of his created children who seem to have no idea he existed. Point is, your God is supposed to be an omnipotent supernatural being who seemed to have no idea how to get through to his beloved children, no matter who they were (Caananites, Amaikites, Midianites, Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans, Greeks, etc.) and instead threw tantrums which by today's standards is abhhorent. By contrast, we have an international tribunal that lays out the rights of humanity afforded to all, it oversees and prosecutes warcrimes and it seems us mere mortals have been able to do a better job of humanity than your allegedly "loving" God ever did.

If you call this better---I have no idea what you are looking at.

Again, the Bible never said "Thou wast perfect from the day that thou wast created", it said "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.". Why was heaven such a bad place that 1/3rd of all the Angels agreed with Lucifer and turned against God anyway? Did God create a great used car salesman in Lucifer?

I there some sort of significant difference that you see in created perfect or created perfect in thy ways???
Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
I see he was created perfect--what do you see?
As for what Lucifer and those other angels felt--all I can say is Lucifer was/is very cunning--if you want to know how he lured them away from God, read the story of Absalom--2 Sanuel 13-15--esp 15.
He wanted to be worshipped, he wanted to be God, he maligned God's character slowly and insinuated that he would do a better job than he--sort of all the things you've been saying. They chose to believe him. Yah--you could say Lucifer was a very clever used car salesman! No one knows how long he was doing this, he could have been going along just fine for millions of years and then he started to look only at himself.
It may seem crazy, but there are people who feel that living in heaven would be horribly boring and they don't want to go there. They feel that life without drinking sex, and inappropriate content and doing all sorts of evil things would not be worth living. And there are those that love to kill, rape and steal.

That wasn't a problem when God wiped out the Amalakites, Caananites, Midianites, etc. do you think that created a little stress among the uncertain Hebrews & Israelites that would cause them to follow out of fear?

The difference is, all of those beings in heaven were sinless. They had never been exposed to sin -- Those others were steeped in it, and the Israelites had spent over 400 years in Egypt and seen a lot of evil--they needed a little fear in them!

God can just change the rules regardless what I believe. If he wants me to believe that he came to earth to sacrifice himself to himself for whatever reason, then he not only knows how to do that, but is perfectly capable of doing so, and has allegedly done so on numerous occasions already. His love and forgiveness is not contingent on my belief in unsupportable claims, I can forgive any number and manner of people without their acceptance of said forgiveness, let alone their belief in some unsupportable claim I might make.

Again---it is your choice--you have the same info I do.

 

[mmksparbud]

-_- yep, sorry, I have so many questions and every time you answer one question, three more pop up because of it... I guess we could go back to finding out how you come to your beliefs but you don't seem to have an answer for that other than you assume it to be true to start with and never reasoned through other religions besides yours, or even critically considered the claims of your own.

Wrong----I left God for over 30 years---wanted nothing to do with Him and told Him so. I did investigate other religions, I read everything out there -- I even got into Tarot card reading, had my own deck and was just learning when I came back to God and threw them out. I can not believe in reincarnation, I can't believe in a whole bunch of weird gods as in Hindu, I just couldn't buy any of those and I came back to the bible. Then I had to choose which denomination. I did that by deciding who followed the bible the closest. I made my decision, have never doubted it or regretted it.