"Okay, I believe in a higher power(s) now...."

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Which means I have conceded all arguments for God(s) general existence. Now all theists have left to do, presumably, is to demonstrate the Bible specifically.

Shouldn't be very hard...? We have just eliminated many many many formal arguments, in advance.

Thank you kindly, as always.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: BigV

Redac

Regular Member
Jul 16, 2007
4,342
945
California
✟167,609.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
If you've conceded (arguendo of course) all arguments for the existence of God, that would include a number of arguments that themselves preclude polytheism as a possibility. So that's half of your OP done already.

If you're going to insist that that still has to be demonstrated, then you haven't really conceded all arguments like you said. In that case you're going to have to be much more specific about exactly what you have conceded and why, which I suspect is beyond what you intended with this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pavel Mosko
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
If you've conceded (arguendo of course) all arguments for the existence of God, that would include a number of arguments that themselves preclude polytheism as a possibility. So that's half of your OP done already.

If you're going to insist that that still has to be demonstrated, then you haven't really conceded all arguments like you said. In that case you're going to have to be much more specific about exactly what you have conceded and why, which I suspect is beyond what you intended with this thread.

This is why I stated 'God(s) general existence'. I'm aware some arguments argue for a singular prime mover.

But either way, just for [you], I'll even go it one step further. Please, go directly to step 2 :)
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I was going to say the same as @Redac. The arguments for theism generally speaking only can be used to support monotheism (or nondualism), and we've historically seen polytheistic cultures shift in a monotheistic on nondualistic direction specifically because of this sort of thinking (see the Greeks, but also Hinduism). Asking to demonstrate step 1 is basically asking to demonstrate what you're said that you've conceded (arguendo).

For Step 2, I would (and did) focus on... well, a handful of things:

The historicity of the New Testament.
The theological claims of Christianity.
The moral character of the religion.

(All in comparison with the other options on the table.)

It's a much messier question, though, and I don't think it can really be approached constructively if you're just accepting theism as a hypothetical.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I was going to say the same as @Redac. The arguments for theism generally speaking only can be used to support monotheism (or nondualism), and we've historically seen polytheistic cultures shift in a monotheistic on nondualistic direction specifically because of this sort of thinking (see the Greeks, but also Hinduism). Asking to demonstrate step 1 is basically asking to demonstrate what you're said that you've conceded (arguendo).

I admit my OP was a bit sloppy :) I'm going to edit it a bit, for both sake in brevity, and so future posts do not address it 'incorrectly.'

For Step 2, I would (and did) focus on... well, a handful of things:

The historicity of the New Testament.
The theological claims of Christianity.
The moral character of the religion.

(All in comparison with the other options on the table.)

It's a much messier question, though, and I don't think it can really be approached constructively if you're just accepting theism as a hypothetical.

Is there one of these three you would like to focus upon? And if so, care to elaborate a bit; starting with a 'compelling' point/other?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I admit my OP was a bit sloppy :) I'm going to edit it a bit, for both sake in brevity, and so future posts do not address it 'incorrectly.'

Good idea. :)

Is there one of these three you would like to focus upon? And if so, care to elaborate a bit; starting with a 'compelling' point/other?

I don't think there are "compelling" points, honestly. Christianity is predicated upon an apparent absurdity--the only way to find it compelling would be through divine intervention. That is one area where the doctrine of grace comes in.

I think the point of apologetics would be threefold: first, to demonstrate that the apparent absurdities of Christianity actually are internally consistent; second, to show that the New Testament is at least reliable enough to be taken seriously; and third, to really transmit the beauty and hope of the Christian message. That last bit tends to get ignored these days.
 
Upvote 0

MrsFoundit

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2019
899
200
South
✟33,276.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think the point of apologetics would be threefold: first, to demonstrate that the apparent absurdities of Christianity actually are internally consistent;

Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me, Christianity is the one that worked in application.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I don't think there are "compelling" points, honestly. Christianity is predicated upon an apparent absurdity--the only way to find it compelling would be through divine intervention. That is one area where the doctrine of grace comes in.

I would partially agree, in the sense that one's own personal beliefs may be predicated upon 'direct contact', or being the direct witness of a 'miracle intervention.' Hence, once someone claims they speak to, and have been contacted by God, I always ask...

Do you believe in the ones whom claim they speak to some claimed opposing agent, ghost, alien, other?

It again further demonstrates that, if we are to leave 'truth' to revelation/contact/other, then many 'beliefs' are still on the table. Hence, what distinguishes the Bible as truth, over the rest? How can the Christian reject the earnest claims of someone whom claims contact or intervention from some claimed opposing claimed agent?


I think the point of apologetics would be threefold: first, to demonstrate that the apparent absurdities of Christianity actually are internally consistent;

Can this be done?

second, to show that the New Testament is at least reliable enough to be taken seriously;

What constitutes 'reliable enough.'? That some events in history look to resemble the claims from the Bible, or, that the verification of 'eyewitness attestation' of the supernatural is reasonably validated, or somewhere in between?

and third, to really transmit the beauty and hope of the Christian message. That last bit tends to get ignored these days.

What is the 'beauty and hope' exactly? I think this depends on whom you ask. :) But regardless, I feel you might agree, that believing or hoping something is true, lends no more or less credibility to it's truth.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me, Christianity is the one that worked in application.

All parts, or just the ones you agree with or like? And even withstanding, how does this verify truth in the fundamental claims, that Jesus rose from the dead? Because, as I'm sure you are aware, the Bible states:

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Do I believe other spirits exist? Yes.
Do I believe they are all of God? No.

How would you know? If you were contacted by a spirit, whom claimed to be your God, how would you distinguish the difference between the true God, verses not?

And furthermore, I would like an answer to my direct questions towards you, if you don't mind?


"All parts, or just the ones you agree with or like? And even withstanding, how does this verify truth in the fundamental claims, that Jesus rose from the dead? Because, as I'm sure you are aware, the Bible states:

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith"
 
Upvote 0

MrsFoundit

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2019
899
200
South
✟33,276.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All parts, or just the ones you agree with or like? And even withstanding, how does this verify truth in the fundamental claims, that Jesus rose from the dead? Because, as I'm sure you are aware, the Bible states:

It on its own does not verify truth in the fundamental claims.

As for all world views seem absurd, my point is, they all contain parts that seem absurd to someone, I therefore acknowledged that attempting to avoid apparent absurdity was futile.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me, Christianity is the one that worked in application.

Yeah, I think when comparing entire worldviews, this is true. When just looking at specific claims and doctrines, though, Christianity is, at first glance, completely insane. A number of other worldviews strike me as the opposite--they look reasonable, but if you get too close, the absurdity creeps in.

I would partially agree, in the sense that one's own personal beliefs may be predicated upon 'direct contact', or being the direct witness of a 'miracle intervention.' Hence, once someone claims they speak to, and have been contacted by God, I always ask...

Do you believe in the ones whom claim they speak to some claimed opposing agent, ghost, alien, other?

This doesn't really make sense as a question. You're comparing first-hand experience and second-hand accounts here--you would need to ask the person who actually claimed to have seen an alien or ghost if they found their own claim credible, and the response would presumably be "yes."

Mind you, "divine intervention" doesn't necessarily mean direct contact or witnessing a miracle. Christianity traditionally teaches that faith is, to a certain extent, a gift, though, so the idea of compelling evidence strikes me as somewhat out of place.

It again further demonstrates that, if we are to leave 'truth' to revelation/contact/other, then many 'beliefs' are still on the table. Hence, what distinguishes the Bible as truth, over the rest? How can the Christian reject the earnest claims of someone whom claims contact or intervention from some claimed opposing claimed agent?

Revelation doesn't preclude reason. In my experience, "how do you pick religion A over religion B?" is only an issue for people who don't take religious claims seriously in the first place--if someone cares about the issue enough to research various traditions, they usually end up with informed opinions about them. (Unless you're just researching other religions for apologetic purposes--that just leads to caricatures.)

Can this be done?

I think so.

What constitutes 'reliable enough.'? That some events in history look to resemble the claims from the Bible, or, that the verification of 'eyewitness attestation' of the supernatural, or somewhere in between?

That would be a subjective judgment.

What is the 'beauty and hope' exactly? I think this depends on whom you ask. :)

Traditionally speaking, Christian hope is the Resurrection of the Body--a renewed world where all that is wrong will finally be set right. It's cosmic, not about cheating the system and getting to a disembodied heaven.

But regardless, I feel you might agree, that believing or hoping something is true, lends no more or less credibility to it's truth.

No, but I have a deep moral problem with operating under the assumption that reality is not ultimately good.
 
Upvote 0