atheism as lack of belief.

[Jeremy E Walker]

A 10 second search shows that I have used the term "demonstrably unreliable" in these forums at least a dozen times in reference human senses and perception.

It's true, sometimes when we use our five senses, they lead us to wrong conclusions. But for the most part we trust them and we rely on them and we do so without being able to prove their veridicality.

 

[Davian]

A 10 second search shows that I have used the term "demonstrably unreliable" in these forums at least a dozen times in reference human senses and perception.

Also, [pedant] I certainly do not limit the human experience to only five senses. From wiki: "Humans have a multitude of senses. Sight (ophthalmoception), hearing (audioception), taste (gustaoception), smell (olfacoception or olfacception), and touch (tactioception) are the five traditionally recognized. While the ability to detect other stimuli beyond those governed by the traditional senses exists, including temperature (thermoception), kinesthetic sense (proprioception), pain (nociception), balance (equilibrioception), and various internal stimuli (e.g. the different chemoreceptors for detecting salt and carbon dioxide concentrations in the blood), only a small number of these can safely be classified as separate senses in and of themselves. What constitutes a sense is a matter of some debate, leading to difficulties in defining what exactly a sense is."
[/pedant]

Try again, Elio?

It's true, sometimes when we use our five senses, they lead us to wrong conclusions. But for the most part we trust them and we rely on them and we do so without being able to prove their veridicality.

So you admit that you could be wrong about your sensing of "God."

Elioenai26 would not have admitted such a thing.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

So you admit that you could be wrong about your sensing of "God."

I could be.

I could be a lot of things, like a brain in a vat, or a body lying in the matrix. I could be your biological father and the man you think is your biological father really isn't.

It is logically possible that my experiences of God are just delusions. I don't believe they are though. I am able to love people now in a way that I was never able to do before Christ came into my life. I know I have been changed and I know my Redeemer lives.

You can know the peace of God too if you invite Him into your heart.

 

[Davian]

I could be.

I could be a lot of things, like a brain in a vat, or a body lying in the matrix. I could be your biological father and the man you think is your biological father really isn't.

It is logically possible that my experiences of God are just delusions. I don't believe they are though. I am able to love people now in a way that I was never able to do before Christ came into my life. I know I have been changed and I know my Redeemer lives.

You can know the peace of God too if you invite Him into your heart.

And you admit that you cannot demonstrate any of that outside of your imagination. Not a very convincing case you have there.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

And you admit that you cannot demonstrate any of that outside of your imagination. Not a very convincing case you have there.

I believe I can demonstrate it. We can debate if you want.

 

[Davian]

I believe I can demonstrate it.

That opportunity has come and gone. Let me know if you have something new.

We can debate if you want.

My response has not changed form the last time you asked me that, Elio.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

That opportunity has come and gone. Let me know if you have something new.

My response has not changed form the last time you asked me that, Elio.

That's what I thought.

Let me know when you're ready.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And if they had yielded to this voice.

Why would they "yield to his voice" if their SD leads them to different theological commitments? What makes you think that your SD is any more reliable than theirs?

The veridicality of your five senses.

Are all your senses infallible or is it just your SD that has never, and could never, lead you astray?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe I can demonstrate it. We can debate if you want.

What would a debate accomplish? You have already indicated that your beliefs are not based on arguments or evidence and that you would continue to believe even if there were none. If your theological commitments were not reached by reason and are not amenable to reason then stop pretending that they are reasonable. Further, stop pretending that we are being unreasonable by not sharing your theology as though we were somehow intellectually obligated to assent to it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's what I thought.

Let me know when you're ready.

What is there to debate? Have you been holding something back that you haven't already introduced to the discussion? Would we even be debating you, or do you intend on copying-and-pasting from other sources, as you've often done?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I could be.

Considering that your SD is not infallible (at least that appears to be what you are saying), why lend it the preponderance of epistemic weight?

It is logically possible that my experiences of God are just delusions. I don't believe they are though. I am able to love people now in a way that I was never able to do before Christ came into my life. I know I have been changed and I know my Redeemer lives.

People who have converted to other religions often describe being changed in some fundamental way as well.

You can know the peace of God too if you invite Him into your heart

Preaching vainly will get you nowhere.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's what I thought.

Let me know when you're ready.

I'd take part in that debate. Frame it up...and pm when you have so I don't miss it. Sounds fun.

 

[Davian]

What is there to debate? Have you been holding something back that you haven't already introduced to the discussion? Would we even be debating you, or do you intend on copying-and-pasting from other sources, as you've often done?

I'd take part in that debate. Frame it up...and pm when you have so I don't miss it. Sounds fun.

You can save yourself much time and energy and just read what is on William Lane Craig's website. That where he cut-and-pasted his arguments from the last time he tried this.

It was such a hot mess that both that 'debate' thread and the peanut gallery thread were completely removed from this forum following the permanent suspension of his account.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You can save yourself much time and energy and just read what is on William Lane Craig's website. That where he cut-and-pasted his arguments from the last time he tried this.

It was such a hot mess that both that 'debate' thread and the peanut gallery thread were completely removed from this forum following the permanent suspension of his account.

If that's the route he wants to go...he's welcome to it. As far as I can tell, he's claiming he can demonstrate these statements are true...

"I am able to love people now in a way that I was never able to do before Christ came into my life. I know I have been changed and I know my Redeemer lives.

You can know the peace of God too if you invite Him into your heart."

...beyond his imagination. Seems pretty impossible, but I'm willing to lend a rope if he's ready to hang himself.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am able to love people now in a way that I was never able to do before Christ came into my life.

I was able to love people better after an intense crush that I had on a girl that I knew. It left a permanent change on my character.

I could attribute that to the influence of Cupid, or I could attribute some divine power to the girl that I knew, but I see no reason to attribute even profound psychological changes to anything supernatural when the natural may account for that well enough.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

I take issue with the idea that atheism is the lack of belief, not a belief itself. Look at it this way: say a person holds the belief--'there is a 50% chance that some god exists.' It seems inaccurate to call that person an atheist. Neutral agnostic would be better. Or consider those mentioned in Acts who worshipped at an altar to 'the unknown God.' They didnt worship a particular deity, but were not atheists.

I suggest atheists should be those who put the chance of some god existing at below maybe 25%, theists those who put it above 75%, and reserve the term agnostic for those in between.

Just for another concept to play with, how about someone who thinks the greek gods were actual aliens who visited earth. Are they theists?

You're making the common error that agnosticism is a "middle ground" between theism and atheism, it isn't.

If you believe a god exists, you are a theist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist (the prefix a- denotes without, so atheism literally means without theism). As such, if you remain unconvinced that a god exists, you are by definition an atheist.

Agnosticism and Gnosticism deals instead with what one claims to know. They are not mutually exclusive with Atheism and Theism, which deal with what a person believes.

Basically put, if you ask someone if they believe a god exists or not, and they answer "I'm an agnostic", they haven't addressed your question.

You didn't ask if they know a god exists or not, you asked what they believe. Their only two options are they either hold a belief that a god exists, or they have not been convinced that one exists. The first position describes Theism, whereas the second describes Atheism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Craig defends the ministerial use of reason like I do. Calvin and Luther also shared this view.

It, quite simply, is the view that reason serves the gospel and not vice versa.

The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the Gospel message. And what Luther maintained is that only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate. In light of the Holy Spirit’s witness, it is only the ministerial use of reason which is valid. Another way of putting it is that philosophy is the handmaid of theology. God has given us reason as a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith. Ours is a faith that seeks understanding, as St. Anselm put it. A person who knows that Christianity is true on the basis of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit can also have a sound apologetic which gives him evidence and arguments for the truth of Christianity.

But while that backs up the witness of the Holy Spirit and confirms it, it doesn’t supplant it or serve as a basis of his belief. If the arguments of natural theology and Christian evidences are good, then that person has kind of a second source of warrant for his Christian beliefs. He has first and foremost the witness of the Holy Spirit, but then he also has the warrant that accrues from the arguments and evidence for Christianity. So this person has, in a sense, a double warrant for his belief in the truth of the Gospel.


The self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit is the judge of what is true and what is false. Anything that contradicts the Holy Spirit's witness is to be regarded as false or not true.

With regard to the ministerial use of reason, I think TheMessianicManic said it best in one of his most recent videos:

It's ironic that he calls his website "reasonable faith" because that name implies that his faith has, in fact, been evaluated by reason. Rather, the opposite is true: he contorts his reasoning to match his faith. Instead, he should call it "faithable reason," because it isn't about faith that's reasonable; it's about attempts at reasoning in a way that is compatible with his faith.

 

[bhsmte]

With regard to the ministerial use of reason, I think TheMessianicManic said it best in one of his most recent videos:

Anyone with any objectivity who has watched Craig debate, would agree with this 100%.

In essence, Craig is a chior preacher.