Recent content by Athée

Truly I am less interested (for this thread) in possible explanations of the cosmos. My point is that if all you have is general theism, a being with the power to be the ecessary first cause, that view can't really make a universe like this one more probable since we have no way of knowing...

I also don't know but what about eternally existing energy or quantum fields or some undiscovered natural process. I wouldn't assert any of those as true but they might be interesting for smarter people than I to wonder about. I also am curious what did you make of my notion that general theism...

Agian your point is well taken. My thought is that whatever the reason, the example of Moses allowing divorce and Jesus later saying it is not God's will, doesn't allow us to assert other examples without an explicit endorsement from Jesus. For example I don't think it would be right to say that...

Hi all your, neighbourhood friendly atheist here. On his excellent YouTube channel Capturing Christianity (apologetics and Christian philosophy Chanel), Cameron hosted a discussion about the fine tuning argument. As the argument was being laid out the notion was advanced that the presence of...

You make a good point, that phrase does indeed refer to the state of the heart. But it seems like in this context Jesus is only talking about divorce. The hardness of the human heart will affect all kinds of things to be sure, but Moses didn't permit all of them so I don't t see this as warrant...

Pardon the click bait title, I couldn't figure out how to summarize my question effectively. We read in the Bible that while God finds divorce sinful, he allows it because of the hardness of human hearts. My question for apologists is, why is this proof of concept applied to questions like...

Nothing if you don't find it interesting. Do you see the conjunctive fallacy as being something to worry about when doing cumulative case type reasoning? Why are you not a fan of the cumatove approach? How badly have I messed up the philosophy ( I ways seem to, sigh).

Wait that's not following the rules! You have to be a cumulative case Christian and I have to be an "I just lack a belief in God and have no positive claim" atheist

You have done an excellent job of showing me some of the errors in my thinking! Thanks, now I don't have to be wrong in the same way anymore :-) It seems to me that we would still worry about increasing conjuncts of dubious certainty Eg Hypothesis: it is raining 1. I see droplets and...

So to apply your thinking to the cumulative case for the resurrection (as an example) it would need to be the case that each of the items in that cumulative case be as certain as your observation of the blurriness, the water droplets and the ripples, otherwise (I think, and correct me if I am...

Hi all, Friendly atheist question. If you are a believer who finds the notion of the cumulative case for the truth claims of your religion compelling, how do you avoid falling prey to the conjunction fallacy? This link is a short read (5 minutes or so) that describes the fallacy and gives a...

I wasn't thinking of anything specifically. Jesus talking to the group of followers saying some here will not be dead before these things come to pass, comes to mind. I think that some many Christians believe this is a future prophecy. But it sounds like your method for determining if any...

Hey all, A friendly atheist here with a quick question. I was thinking today about prophecy and I seem to recall believing (may years ago now) that in order to be a true prophet of God, it had to be the case that every prophecy made, would come to pass. Is that what you believe? If that...

Are you arguing that I have made a mistake is calling it a human creation? That there is a better linguistic term for the hominids that wrote some of the early books eg Job? Saying the human condition wasn't a coined term seems utterly irrelevant. What is your evidence that the Bible should be...

I'm probably just being slow, can you be really clear on how the argument you are advancing here proves that the bible is not a human artifact. Thanks :-)