Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[HitchSlap]

I don't see why his belief in God is evidence that he does not follow the evidence where it leads.

Maybe you could tell me?

There is none, evidence, that is.

I thought you read WLC & DD. Huh.

 

[anonymous person]

There is none, evidence, that is.

I thought you read WLC & DD. Huh.

You have told me that there is no evidence for oi's beliefs.

What I am asking is why you think that.

Responding by saying that there is no evidence for oi's beliefs is simply arguing in a circle.

It would be like me saying that there is evidence for oi's beliefs and then you asking me why I thought that, to which I responded, "there is evidence for oi's beliefs."

One does not prove or demonstrate anything when they do this.

 

[HitchSlap]

F

You have told me that there is no evidence for oi's beliefs.

What I am asking is why you think that.

Responding by saying that there is no evidence for oi's beliefs is simply arguing in a circle.

It would be like me saying that there is evidence for oi's beliefs and then you asking me why I thought that, to which I responded, "there is evidence for oi's beliefs."

One does not prove or demonstrate anything when they do this.

Feel free to go back and read whatever you need to.

 

[Davian]

As if to say that he does not come to his conclusions in the same fashion as you do but should.

Where did I say "should"? If he were trying to construct an accurate description of reality, I might chime in with that recommendation, but I do not think that is what he is after. If he is here attempting in some way to validate his god beliefs, then he probably should take a different approach.

You have any evidence that would demonstrate that his methodology is one wherein he does not follow the evidence where it leads?

I did not say that he does not follow the evidence where it leads him.

From what I have observed here, and elsewhere, there are those that follow the evidence to where they believe it will lead them. The conspiracy theorist may see cover-ups at every turn, the ufologist may see evidence of extraterrestrial aliens in the most obscure sighting report, and the cereologist may cling to every anomaly in an attempt to find a less-than-mundane explanation for their studied phenomena.

Does he follow the evidence in a manner that would minimize human error and bias? Does he consider evidence at all?

I do recall, on the subject of Genesis, he said "The origin of the information in Genesis is not known to me. Therefore I consider it possible that the information origniated from Adam and Eve, transpired all generations into it's present form".

Do you see where he carefully weighed the evidence in the process of establishing what he considered as possible? No?

 

[Davian]

...
If I had to choose between the two, I would say what you have said refers to Elvis. Elvis' body is lying in its grave in Graceland. I have good evidence that Jesus' body was not in its grave and good evidence it was never found.

I suppose one would have to have a clear and concise definition of "good evidence" that would allow you that while not having me board my windows up in an attempt to keep the visiting extraterrestrial aliens from abducting me in the night.

These, among others, are pieces of evidence I use to come to the conclusion that Jesus is not dead, but is alive.

How could he be alive after all this time?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Still waiting, @anonymous person.

I'm still curious to know your thoughts on this, @anonymous person. Given that, according to you, truth is integral to philosophy generally, would you consider intellectual honesty important in the pursuit of truth?

Given that I have stated that I am indeed open to being convinced when it comes to certain matters, then an attempt on his part would not be futile if indeed he were attempting to convince me of something which falls within the category of views which I hold tentatively.

Is the historicity of Jesus one such example?

Is Paul's authorship of those letters something that you would reconsider if new findings were to cast doubt on it? Are you open to be convinced on this matter? You can appreciate how this ties together with my question about intellectual honesty (1), which you have yet to address. You claim to have approached Paul's letters, and the Bible generally, "with the desire to be objective, honest, and open." While laudable, what does this mean in practice? Are you open to questioning whether the Bible is the work of a deity? Are you open to questioning the claims contained therein? In what way is your approach to this text "objective, honest, and open," given that you assume you cannot be wrong about its authorship or any of the claims made within it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There are indeed many absurdities and atrocities in the bible. The Bible is full of accounts of men doing absurd and evil things.

Such as accounts of killing men, women, and children at the behest of a deity?

If I had to choose between the two, I would say what you have said refers to Elvis. Elvis' body is lying in its grave in Graceland. I have good evidence that Jesus' body was not in its grave and good evidence it was never found. These, among others, are pieces of evidence I use to come to the conclusion that Jesus is not dead, but is alive.

If some ancient bodily remains were one day confidently identified as those of Jesus of Nazareth, would you reconsider your theological commitments?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I highlighted a word in the above. I would love to see the evidence you have to support your claim.

Which part of "racist, sexist, genocidal, slave-driving rapists" is in doubt? Racist? "Philistine" has become a derogatory term in Judeo-Christianity. Sexist? Hah, do I even have to bother? Genocidal? Well, have you read the book of Joshua? Slave-driving? There are plenty of well-known verses on this. Rapists? Well, they had 10 commandments and accidentally left out "Thou shalt not rape"? On a related note, did the ancient Jews even have a word for "rape"?

But here is some hard evidence for you:

Racist:

You could charge foreigners interest, but you could not charge a fellow Jew interest. Deuteronomy 23:19-20.

You could own a foreign slave indefinitely (Leviticus 25:44-46), but you could only own a Jew slave for 6 years (Exodus 21:2).

Jesus refers to gentiles as dogs. Matthew 15:22-28.

Sexist:

I won't even bother explaining these verses.

Genesis 3:16. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Leviticus 12:2-5.

Genocidal:

How about the entire book of Joshua? Or if that's too much, read chapter 10.


Slave-driving:

You may beat your slaves as long as you don't kill them or cause permanent injury. Exodus 21:20-27.

Slaves are regarded as property and may be passed down as inheritance. Leviticus 25:44-46.

Rapists:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

There are indeed many absurdities and atrocities in the bible. The Bible is full of accounts of men doing absurd and evil things.

Except that everything I listed above came straight from God.

I said that I do not approach texts religious or otherwise assuming they are false. I withhold judgment until I have evidence and good reasons to think they are false or inaccurate/unreliable.

And look where that approach got you.

And?

Joseph Smith said he saw and did certain things. There is no real evidence to either substantiate it or falsify it, so you are clearly not using the methodology that you claim to be using.

If I had to choose between the two, I would say what you have said refers to Elvis. Elvis' body is lying in its grave in Graceland. I have good evidence that Jesus' body was not in its grave and good evidence it was never found. These, among others, are pieces of evidence I use to come to the conclusion that Jesus is not dead, but is alive.

Good evidence that Jesus' body was not in its grave and was never found? Even if true, what does it prove?

Also your "good evidence" came from second-hand sources decades after the fact.

 

[oi_antz]

No, as it would seem that we have diametrically opposed methodologies for examining evidence. I come to a conclusion following the examination of evidence.

This is confusing. Why bother making criticism while also refusing to offer advice? I think you just enjoy feeling as though you are better than me.

 

[oi_antz]

I do recall, on the subject of Genesis, he said "The origin of the information in Genesis is not known to me. Therefore I consider it possible that the information origniated from Adam and Eve, transpired all generations into it's present form".

Do you see where he carefully weighed the evidence in the process of establishing what he considered as possible? No?

Davian, do you think it is not possible that Genesis accounts did transpire generations? Please explain why. I do not believe that possibilities should be excluded based on a lack of evidence that supports them. There could be good reasons why evidence that does support them, has become unavailable. In such a case, the truth does not necessarily become untrue due to the supporting evidence not being available.

 

[oi_antz]

Simple, the thread went to a discussion in regards to the historical credibility of the gospels.

This does nothing to tell me why you thought it would be worthwhile to ask for my attention. This is what I mean, that you are answering my questions for your own interests while also not addressing my interests.

And, if you can't find the answers to your questions in my posts, nothing else I can do about it.

This is not true. You can answer my questions to benefit my understanding.. but only if you want to.

 

[bhsmte]

This does nothing to tell me why you thought it would be worthwhile to ask for my attention. This is what I mean, that you are answering my questions for your own interests while also not addressing my interests.

This is not true. You can answer my questions to benefit my understanding.. but only if you want to.

I answered your questions.

Feel free to go back and read my posts.

Now, you may not have liked the answers, but they were answered.

 

[oi_antz]

No global flood, earth is not 10K years old, Exodus story is myth, it's a bad idea to 'take no thought for the 'morrow,' there is no "chosen people," etc.

I get what you mean. Ok, so do you think that it is not intellectually dishonest to treat the reliability of information in the book of Acts the same as the reliability of information in the book of Genesis? If so, please explain why.

Also, I would like to know your reasons for believing that the Exodus story is myth.

You would be less upset if you simply aligned your beliefs with reality.

Why did you choose the word "upset" to describe my mood? I think that perhaps there is some misunderstanding there. All that motivated me to say so, is I saw your statement was faulted, and I have recognised you as one that does love truth even though also resisting the gospel. Still, you have not been the type to answer questions to avoid coming to an agreement of truth. This is why I thought you might appreciate being encouraged to this observation.

If you seriously think that my beliefs are inconsistent with reality, I would treat your feedback quite seriously. If you'd like to help me sort that out, maybe a Private Message will be most appropriate for OP's intention on this thread.

 

[oi_antz]

I answered your questions.

Will you agree to use "yes" and "no" for my future questions to you? (Please respond with "yes" or "no", then elaborate if you feel a desire to do so).

 

[HitchSlap]

I get what you mean. Ok, so do you think that it is not intellectually dishonest to treat the reliability of information in the book of Acts the same as the reliability of information in the book of Genesis? If so, please explain why.

AFAIK, at this point, the book of Acts is considered largely fiction. If you have any corroboration for Acts as literal history, I'm happy to take a look.

Also, I would like to know your reasons for believing that the Exodus story is myth.

There is no archaeological evidence to support the Exodus claim of over a million Hebrews living in a ten square mile area for forty years. Even after an officially sponsored Israeli archaeological expedition, in which zero evidence was found, Israel's official opinion of the Exodus story is one of myth.

Why did you choose the word "upset" to describe my mood? I think that perhaps there is some misunderstanding there. All that motivated me to say so, is I saw your statement was faulted, and I have recognised you as one that does love truth even though also resisting the gospel.

Yes, at this point in my life, I want to believe as many true things as possible, and not believe as many false things as possible.

Still, you have not been the type to answer questions to avoid coming to an agreement of truth. This is why I thought you might appreciate being encouraged to this observation.

I'm sorry if I missed your question. What would you like to know?

If you seriously think that my beliefs are inconsistent with reality, I would treat your feedback quite seriously. If you'd like to help me sort that out, maybe a Private Message will be most appropriate for OP's intention on this thread.

Accepting the Exodus story as historical fact would be at odds with all available evidence.

 

[Davian]

This is confusing. Why bother making criticism while also refusing to offer advice?

Based on our previous exchanges in these forums and in PM, I feel that my advice to you would only be a waste of time on both our parts.

I think you just enjoy feeling as though you are better than me.

Play the victim card if you like, but we obviously have incompatible approaches to exploring reality.

Davian, do you think it is not possible that Genesis accounts did transpire generations? Please explain why. I do not believe that possibilities should be excluded based on a lack of evidence that supports them. There could be good reasons why evidence that does support them, has become unavailable. In such a case, the truth does not necessarily become untrue due to the supporting evidence not being available.

Here is a good example. I do not restrict myself to only looking at supporting evidence for a claim as a method of inquiry.

 

[oi_antz]

AFAIK, at this point, the book of Acts is considered largely fiction. If you have any corroboration for Acts as literal history, I'm happy to take a look.

I will remember you if I come across something relevant. How do you prefer to explain the proliferation of Christianity, and do you have evidence for that opinion?

There is no archaeological evidence to support the Exodus claim of over a million Hebrews living in a ten square mile area for forty years. Even after an officially sponsored Israeli archaeological expedition, in which zero evidence was found, Israel's official opinion of the Exodus story is one of myth.

Did you find out how they explained the origin of the myth, and why they would expect to base their claim to the holy land upon the promise from God that it implies?

Yes, at this point in my life, I want to believe as many true things as possible, and not believe as many false things as possible.



I'm sorry if I missed your question. What would you like to know?

You have misread this.

Accepting the Exodus story as historical fact would be at odds with all available evidence.

Do you rather mean to say that lack of supporting evidence is evidence opposed in this case? Do you think this is necessarily the truth and exodus cannot possibly be true; and is lack of supporting evidence also evidence opposed, in all cases?

 

[bhsmte]

Will you agree to use "yes" and "no" for my future questions to you? (Please respond with "yes" or "no", then elaborate if you feel a desire to do so).

I love short and concise responses.

If a question can be answered yes or no and that paints the entire picture, no problem.

 

[HitchSlap]

I will remember you if I come across something relevant.

Ok, however scholarship is what I'm interested in, not an adherent's opinion.

How do you prefer to explain the proliferation of Christianity, and do you have evidence for that opinion?

Much like any religion proliferates, I suppose. In the case of Christianity, Constantine seems to have single handedly resurrected a pretty much dead religion.

Did you find out how they explained the origin of the myth, and why they would expect to base their claim to the holy land upon the promise from God that it implies?

Having mythic and legendary stories are ubiquitous and every culture has them.

Do you rather mean to say that lack of supporting evidence is evidence opposed in this case? Do you think this is necessarily the truth and exodus cannot possibly be true; and is lack of supporting evidence also evidence opposed, in all cases?

Yes, generally speaking, making a claim without appropriate evidence is not the best way to navigate reality.
It may, or may not, be a true story, I really don't care one way or the other, but the fact is, there is no evidence to support a literal Exodus story.

 

[oi_antz]

I love short and concise responses.

If a question can be answered yes or no and that paints the entire picture, no problem.

Are you happy for me to decode this as "no"?