Does apologetics "work"?

[2PhiloVoid]

Instead of tossing out comment's like that, please, just tell me what you find disagreeable--it facilitates discussion and avoids rising tensions between people.

Ok. I don't think that Occam's Razor is as conceptually efficient for parsing as it has been claimed to be ...

I wish I had the time to write out 2,000 word explanations, but I don't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Instead of tossing out comment's like that, please, just tell me what you find disagreeable--it facilitates discussion and avoids rising tensions between people.

I really don't expect you to read the following article (even though I would if it were given to me), but it's the kind of critique offered therein which gives me pause to 'rethink' the whole epistemic problem here as it relates to God and the Bible:

Science, Ockham’s Razor & God | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now

 

[redleghunter]

What brand of materialism do you mean? I'm gonna say the itinerant preacher part.

You take as evidence only things of the material world. Which is important as what we see, hear, touch etc is powerful affirmation. Yet leading into the question I had and you asked for further clarification:

What do you mean, what was my faith based on. I am struggling to understand your questions. I am fully ready and willing to answer, but the questions are a bit vague for a person who doesn't travel in Christian circles and use that sort of terminology.

Your claim is you were a Christian. What exactly had you convinced of the Gospel previously which when you examined further did not believe? It seems you did a materialistic or physical evaluation of your faith. Yet knowing the Christian faith is based on promises from YHWH to His people. And YHWH Who is creator of all things is not subject to the physical/material bucket of His own Creation.

Put another way, what convinced you of Jesus as Risen Lord and Savior when you were a Christian? Was it an intellectual exercise of theological principles?

 

[Caliban]

I really don't expect you to read the following article (even though I would if it were given to me), but it's the kind of critique offered therein which gives me pause to 'rethink' the whole epistemic problem here as it relates to God and the Bible:

Science, Ockham’s Razor & God | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now

I will definitely read it, thanks.

 

[Caliban]

You take as evidence only things of the material world. Which is important as what we see, hear, touch etc is powerful affirmation. Yet leading into the question I had and you asked for further clarification:

But what other evidence is there? What would you have me consider?

knowing the Christian faith is based on promises from YHWH to His people. And YHWH Who is creator of all things is not subject to the physical/material bucket of His own Creation.

I believe that when I was a Christian. I have reconsidered the truth claims of the Bible for many reasons. I am working on a brief example that I plan on including to my information page. If interested, I have written this so far.

 

[redleghunter]

But what other evidence is there? What would you have me consider?

Everything you dismiss based on your materialistic approach.

I am sure your first step to dismiss the Divine actions of God was to convince yourself God’s revelation to mankind, the Holy Scriptures were unreliable.

You indicated you read books which called into question the Divine authorship of Scriptures. Which would be based on a skeptic’s point of view. Did you consider any works of Norman Geisler, F.F Bruce and many other Christian NT and textual scholars? Have you read any of the works of Sir William M. Ramsey or Simon Greenleaf?

Or, as is claimed against Christians, did you just pick what would suit your own opinion?

 

[redleghunter]

I believe that when I was a Christian. I have reconsidered the truth claims of the Bible for many reasons. I am working on a brief example that I plan on including to my information page. If interested, I have written this so far.

Why won’t you answer the below posed to you previously here?

Put another way, what convinced you of Jesus as Risen Lord and Savior when you were a Christian? Was it an intellectual exercise of theological principles?

 

[Caliban]

Everything you dismiss based on your materialistic approach.

I am sure your first step to dismiss the Divine actions of God was to convince yourself God’s revelation to mankind, the Holy Scriptures were unreliable.

You indicated you read books which called into question the Divine authorship of Scriptures. Which would be based on a skeptic’s point of view. Did you consider any works of Norman Geisler, F.F Bruce and many other Christian NT and textual scholars? Have you read any of the works of Sir William M. Ramsey or Simon Greenleaf?

Or, as is claimed against Christians, did you just pick what would suit your own opinion?

I am familiar with F.F. Bruce and Geisler, I have read only a bit of Greenleaf. I am unfamiliar with Ramsey. The problem with Greenleaf is that his dates are prior to modern historical and textual NT scholarship.

I am well studied in theology and some NT Scholarship. Enough to be conversant and to address arguments based on academic papers. I do not however, read Greek, or Hebrew--I rely on translation.

You are spot on about being skeptical of revelation. That was not always the case. What convinces you the Bible is God's revelation?

 

[Caliban]

Why won’t you answer the below posed to you previously here?

A mixture of several factors lead to my acceptance of Jesus. First, I was raised to believe. It was cultural transmission. Second, I began reading theology and apologetics in high school. I was fond of Francis Shaffer, Cornelius Van Till, and R.C. Sproul. I was also big into a radio show called The White Hoarse Inn. This was in the early 90's. When I was in the Navy (2000-2006) I got into Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel.
After that I int to college and Studied English Literature and also Religious Studies. This is when I began to read academic works concerning the text of the Bible. I survived college with an intact faith. I remained a Christian for about five years after college.

So I'd say it was a combination of many things that lead me to faith in Jesus. Of course there were also significant experiences that seemed to confirm my faith.

 

[Caliban]

Why won’t you answer the below posed to you previously here?

Patience--working on it.

 

[redleghunter]

I am familiar with F.F. Bruce and Geisler, I have read only a bit of Greenleaf. I am unfamiliar with Ramsey. The problem with Greenleaf is that his dates are prior to modern historical and textual NT scholarship.

Familiar in what way? Did you read their defenses of the Scriptures? They address the 19th century Tubingen school.

Greenleaf was actually at the forefront.

I am well studied in theology and some NT Scholarship. Enough to be conversant and to address arguments based on academic papers. I do not however, read Greek, or Hebrew--I rely on translation.

So are millions of Christians.

You are spot on about being skeptical of revelation. That was not always the case. What convinces you the Bible is God's revelation?

God has proven every promise.

 

[redleghunter]

So I'd say it was a combination of many things that lead me to faith in Jesus. Of course there were also significant experiences that seemed to confirm my faith.

What seems to come over strongly is the cultural transmission and theological principles. What were the experineces?

 

[Caliban]

Familiar in what way? Did you read their defenses of the Scriptures? They address the 19th century Tubingen school.

Greenleaf was actually at the forefront.

I am seriously not interested in talking about theologians and scholars. I am interested in ideas. If you want to discuss a particular idea--we should do that.

So are millions of Christians.

I don't doubt that. You asked--I responded.

God has proven every promise.

What promise did he fulfill and how?

 

[Caliban]

What seems to come over strongly is the cultural transmission and theological principles. What were the experineces?

I grew up in a small mountain community church--Assembly of God. It wasn't as charismatic as others, but for a while some people spoke in tongues. I was moved to do it also. Later we moved and I attended a Nazarene church, we had a powerful youth group and lots of devout fellowship and worship. Those experiences were powerful and felt beautiful. I had some intense moments during the Iraq war that caused me to pray and trust God--that felt very powerful and spiritual--very real. Later, I got married, had kids, read family worship at home--those were joyous. There are surely many more--but those stand out.

 

[redleghunter]

I am seriously not interested in talking about theologians and scholars. I am interested in ideas. If you want to discuss a particular idea--we should do that.

I was just responding to your statements of studying skeptic scholars and how that helped convince you.

What promise did he fulfill and how?

Redemption.

Which leads back to what convinced you of the Christian faith in the first place. You did indicate cultural transmission and study of theology. You also indicated there were experiences which you ask for me to patiently await. I will. Thanks.

 

[redleghunter]

I grew up in a small mountain community church--Assembly of God. It wasn't as charismatic as others, but for a while some people spoke in tongues. I was moved to do it also. Later we moved and I attended a Nazarene church, we had a powerful youth group and lots of devout fellowship and worship. Those experiences were powerful and felt beautiful. I had some intense moments during the Iraq war that caused me to pray and trust God--that felt very powerful and spiritual--very real. Later, I got married, had kids, read family worship at home--those were joyous. There are surely many more--but those stand out.

Thank you for sharing. It seems you were once convinced of church community and personal experience.

The Scriptures do address such a faith not rooted in the Person of Jesus Christ.

 

[Caliban]

I was just responding to your statements of studying skeptic scholars and how that helped convince you.

But a question about a who doesn't get us to a what. Let's get specific. Give me a claim by one of them, or anyone, concerning the reliability of a supernatural biblical claim. I'm down to discuss it throughly.

 

[redleghunter]

But a question about a who doesn't get us to a what. Let's get specific. Give me a claim by one of them, or anyone, concerning the reliability of a supernatural biblical claim. I'm down to discuss it throughly.

Is this feasible with someone who denies there is a supernatural? I ask because of all the supernatural claims there were multiple eyewitnesses to the event.

Then your point would be can we trust their eyewitness accounts and the proper transmission in word and deed.

It all comes down to the skeptic to dismiss the Scriptures as reliable and that is based on your own skeptic sources. Kind of like this:

 

[Caliban]

Is this feasible with someone who denies there is a supernatural? I ask because of all the supernatural claims there were multiple eyewitnesses to the event.

Then your point would be can we trust their eyewitness accounts and the proper transmission in word and deed.

It all comes down to the skeptic to dismiss the Scriptures as reliable and that is based on your own skeptic sources. Kind of like this:

I don't think that video is compelling.

Is this feasible with someone who denies there is a supernatural? I ask because of all the supernatural claims there were multiple eyewitnesses to the event.

This is more of the crux of the matter. What you are suggesting is that since I do not presuppose the possibility of the supernatural, I won't believe it. Thats 100% correct. When are person presupposes something, they are including the conclusion in their premise. That is an invalid syllogistic structure. If a person wants to present a case that the supernatural is real, they must first present premises that do not contain the conclusion. I'm not sure If I am being clear--that might sound confusing and wordy.

I don't begin with the assumption the supernatural is real--that is what has to be demonstrated. All I can experience is the natural world. Nothing shows or points to a supernatural reality. If you want to make a case that the supernatural exists, you have to make the argument.

 

[redleghunter]

When are person presupposes something, they are including the conclusion in their premise. That is an invalid syllogistic structure. If a person wants to present a case that the supernatural is real, they must first present premises that do not contain the conclusion. I'm not sure If I am being clear--that might sound confusing and wordy.

Now that is wee bit the clover calling the grass green.

I don't begin with the assumption the supernatural is real--that is what has to be demonstrated. All I can experience is the natural world.

Only if you deny the revelation of Holy Scriptures.

It seems the video is quite useful.