Maybe He's lying?

[aiki]

As you appear unable to comprehend most of what I'm posting, I'm not going to continue to respond to your confused posts. This will be my last crack at patching up your fallacious thinking.

As I understand it, you think Christians are guilty of circular reasoning because they believe the things written in the Bible. Apparently, you only understand God's Word, the Bible, to be a fiction written ostensibly by God and proven to be true only by the fiction itself. In other words, you think Christians believe what God says in His Word merely because it is what He has said He has said in His Word. If this were true, it would be circular reasoning Christians are guilty of. However, this is not why Christians believe God's Word is what it is. There is more than simply what the Bible claims it is (God's Word) bearing out the legitimacy of its claims.

1. The thematic unity of the Bible in spite of it being written in three different languages, by forty different writers from widely varying walks of life, over the span of about 1500 years.
2. Fulfilled prophecy.
3. Historical accuracy.
4. Its powerful positive impact upon cultures and individuals over centuries.
5. Its correspondence to reality.
6. Personal experience of the God revealed in the Bible.

All of these points are valid independently of the claims of Scripture. The Bible was written as I described and it has the unity I say it does. And this is so, not because the Bible says it is, but because these are the literary and historical facts of the matter.

Archaeologists have used the Bible as primary source material for their investigations of the past civilizations of the near and middle east because they find it highly accurate in its descriptions of past places and cultures. This is true, not because the Bible says so, but because this is actually what archaeologists have experienced.

Bible prophecies have been fulfilled and historical events recorded independently of the Bible bear this out.

And so on. Hopefully, you can see I believe the Bible is the Word of God because there are these reasons, existing independently of the claims of the Bible that it is God's Word, that give me good reason to believe so. There is nothing circular about this line of reasoning.

Now, you may not agree that the reasons for my belief that the Bible is God's Word are persuasive, but that is a different issue.

Selah.

 

[razeontherock]

Yes, that would be pre-programming.

AKA renewing of the mind.

 

[EndlessSerenade]

Religion is religion. It's about believing in something you can't prove. If we were to know that there is definitely a God hands down then that would defeat the purpose of free will.

 

[Non sequitur]

As you appear unable to comprehend most of what I'm posting, I'm not going to continue to respond to your confused posts. This will be my last crack at patching up your fallacious thinking.

As I understand it, you think Christians are guilty of circular reasoning because they believe the things written in the Bible. Apparently, you only understand God's Word, the Bible, to be a fiction written ostensibly by God and proven to be true only by the fiction itself. In other words, you think Christians believe what God says in His Word merely because it is what He has said He has said in His Word. If this were true, it would be circular reasoning Christians are guilty of. However, this is not why Christians believe God's Word is what it is. There is more than simply what the Bible claims it is (God's Word) bearing out the legitimacy of its claims.

1. The thematic unity of the Bible in spite of it being written in three different languages, by forty different writers from widely varying walks of life, over the span of about 1500 years.
2. Fulfilled prophecy.
3. Historical accuracy.
4. Its powerful positive impact upon cultures and individuals over centuries.
5. Its correspondence to reality.
6. Personal experience of the God revealed in the Bible.

All of these points are valid independently of the claims of Scripture. The Bible was written as I described and it has the unity I say it does. And this is so, not because the Bible says it is, but because these are the literary and historical facts of the matter.

Archaeologists have used the Bible as primary source material for their investigations of the past civilizations of the near and middle east because they find it highly accurate in its descriptions of past places and cultures. This is true, not because the Bible says so, but because this is actually what archaeologists have experienced.

Bible prophecies have been fulfilled and historical events recorded independently of the Bible bear this out.

And so on. Hopefully, you can see I believe the Bible is the Word of God because there are these reasons, existing independently of the claims of the Bible that it is God's Word, that give me good reason to believe so. There is nothing circular about this line of reasoning.

Now, you may not agree that the reasons for my belief that the Bible is God's Word are persuasive, but that is a different issue.

Selah.

Again, you've missed the point.

While I might disagree with some of those reasons, I'll gladly and happily accept them for the sake of argument.


Have you never seen a movie where the guy dong all the nice and good things turned out to be the bad guy? If you stopped in the middle of it, or before the big reveal, you'd have simply assumed he was the good guy.

Again, how could you know that God isn't lying about what he is saying and/or telling you?

 

[Non sequitur]

Religion is religion. It's about believing in something you can't prove. If we were to know that there is definitely a God hands down then that would defeat the purpose of free will.

I'm assuming you are talking about the free will in the Bible.

Which again, would be circular logic, as you are predisposed to believe there is such a thing, already accepting its premise.


Also, that is a nonsensical reply to the question.

 

[razeontherock]

I'm assuming you are talking about the free will in the Bible.

Which again, would be circular logic, as you are predisposed to believe there is such a thing, already accepting its premise.

Consistent w/ Aiki's last post, free will can be discerned from reality - G-d's
"other book." You don't need to get the premise from the Bible. It isn't even that easy to do so.

 

[razeontherock]

Have you never seen a movie where the guy dong all the nice and good things turned out to be the bad guy? If you stopped in the middle of it, or before the big reveal, you'd have simply assumed he was the good guy.

Again, how could you know that God isn't lying about what he is saying and/or telling you?

Again, this is basic trust. English doesn't do this concept justice when it comes to Bible reading. We learn to trust in the Lord as we get to know Him. To know Him is to love Him; He is perfect.

 

[Non sequitur]

Consistent w/ Aiki's last post, free will can be discerned from reality - G-d's
"other book." You don't need to get the premise from the Bible. It isn't even that easy to do so.

Again, how could you know that God isn't lying about what he is saying and/or telling you?

 

[Biker Angel]

As you appear unable to comprehend most of what I'm posting, I'm not going to continue to respond to your confused posts. This will be my last crack at patching up your fallacious thinking.

At least you get to make the choice not to post. Sequitur put me on Ignore.

 

[Biker Angel]

From the rules:
Blasphemy
You will not insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father(God), Son(Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Honest debate about the nature of God and Christianity is allowed, but derogatory remarks will be promptly removed.

Again, how could you know that God isn't lying about what he is saying and/or telling you?

Accusing God of being a lier cleverly disguised as a question looks like blasphemy and an insult to me.

If Jesus died for your sins, and the Bible says we’re all sinners, you’d be crazy not to sin. So, get out there and make Jesus’s sacrifice worthwhile!

Also your signature appears to be mocking christianity.

 

[razeontherock]

Oy, I had missed NS' new tagline I agree, that is in extremely poor taste ... do we need to discuss the ramifications?

 

[Non sequitur]

From the rules:
Blasphemy
You will not insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father(God), Son(Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Honest debate about the nature of God and Christianity is allowed, but derogatory remarks will be promptly removed.

Accusing God of being a lier cleverly disguised as a question looks like blasphemy and an insult to me.

Grow up? Stop acting like a martyr? I don't know what to tell you...

First, it's your interpretation that it is blasphemy to you. I only see you trolling my questions, but strangely nobody else's questions that could also be deemed blasphemous as well.

Secondly, it's not violating any rules mocking anybody or anything. It's a legitimate question.

Also your signature appears to be mocking christianity.

And when I see several Christians mocking the mere concept of atheism, I guess it's all good... because it's a Christian forum.

Very just and fair.


Now, while I might interpret that "useful advice", I have changed it and apologize it if was.


Also, get over it.

 

[brinny]

At least you get to make the choice not to post. Sequitur put me on Ignore.

LOL!

 

[aiki]

Again, you've missed the point.

While I might disagree with some of those reasons, I'll gladly and happily accept them for the sake of argument.

Have you never seen a movie where the guy dong all the nice and good things turned out to be the bad guy? If you stopped in the middle of it, or before the big reveal, you'd have simply assumed he was the good guy.

Again, how could you know that God isn't lying about what he is saying and/or telling you?

Because nothing so far indicates that He is. He could be lying, but I don't think there is sufficient (or, really, any) evidence to think that this possibility is likely. What evidence can you offer in support of the possibility that He is?

Selah.

 

[Non sequitur]

Because nothing so far indicates that He is. He could be lying, but I don't think there is sufficient (or, really, any) evidence to think that this possibility is likely. What evidence can you offer in support of the possibility that He is?

Selah.

Well, you wouldn't know if he was lying, so you can't really say "nothing so far indicates that He is".

If you were unaware that your information was faulty, you'd be saying exactly that.

Again, I point you back to the movie reference. "Nothing indicated" that he was the bad guy, until after he was discovered to be.

 

[lucaspa]

"I think their willingness to die for what they were proclaiming about Jesus' resurrection - at the very least - rules out the idea that they knew they were lying. One is forced by this fact to ask what, then, would have motivated the disciples to say such things? Hallucination? No, people don't hallucinate in groups, which is what would have had to happen to the disciples for this theory to work. Insanity? The disciples' would all have had to go crazy about the exact same thing in the exact same way. This is extremely unlikely. What's left?"

I double-tip, for your misdirection.

It's not. It's non-circular logic. It's the hypothetico-deductive method used by science and the elimination of hypotheses. The author is faced with a fact: The disciples proclaimed Jesus' resurrection even at the cost of their life. I would also note that they were doing so at great personal sacrifice: poverty, rejection from their own society, ridicule, and physical danger.

So, what are the hypotheses that would explain such behavior?
1. They are lying. Perhaps they stole the body or just made it up.
2. They all hallucinated the resurrection.
3. They were all insane.
4. The Resurrection actually happened.

Now what happens is you refute all the hypotheses you can. The one left standing is the one we accept (provisionally) as true.

1. Most lies are for personal gain. Here there is no persona gain, either monetary or in terms of power. That's one refutation. Another is that people recant lies when faced with death because of those lies. Now, the occasional patriot may continue to lie in order to benefit his country or cause, but here there is no "cause" other than the lie being told. So we would expect at least one, and probably several, to recant. They did not. So this is refuted.
2. People don't hallucinate in groups. So this is refuted.
3. People don't all go insane in the same way. So this is refuted.

What we are left with is #4.

While you replaced "reasoned arguments" with "postulated circular logic-type explanation", that's close.

There was no circular logic here. Please walk us thru the circular logic.

Instead, we have a gardener with 3 observations:
1. His vegetables are disappearing.
2. He sees rabbits.
3. Rabbits are known (from other observations) to eat vegetables.

Hypothesis/conclusion: rabbits are taking and eating his vegetables.

What we have instead is that none of his neighbors ever sees the rabbits. Is that sufficient to declare the hypothesis false? NO. They might simply be looking in the wrong place at the wrong time. After all, they are just visiting while the gardener is there all the time. IOW, we have an alternative hypothesis to explain why the neighbors don't see the rabbits but the gardener does.

You left out, "If you weren't reading books that talked about magical rabbits, maybe you wouldn't be so inclined to think you experienced them?"

Except there is no claim about the rabbits being "magical". So here we have the fallacy of strawman.

This also ignores that people who have never read the books experience deity. Let's face it, Saul of Tarsus never read a book about Jesus and never met the historical Jesus. He did not believe the stories that he heard. And yet ...

So what we have here is the fallacy of the biased sample.

And possibly, "Some security footage would easily verify these pesky rabbits. But I'm sure they don't 'work that way'."

IF you have the security cameras. But what if you don't?

What you are doing is putting up an "ad hoc hypothesis". But you are doing it even before the potentially falsifying data comes in. That's the Argument from Ridicule.

 

[lucaspa]

Oy, I had missed NS' new tagline I agree, that is in extremely poor taste ... do we need to discuss the ramifications?

I'ts Ad Hominem Fallacy. He's not addressing any arguments, he is personally insulting theists. Considering the quantity and variety of fallacies NS uses, this is consistent.

 

[lucaspa]

- "The unseen thing is red."
- "If you can't see it, how do you know it is red?
- "Because the unseen thing had it written down, through others, that it is red. Some of the other things written down by those were about the Civil War."
- "Well, it appears all your evidence for it being red originates with writings in which it declared it to be red. The concept wouldn't have been created, if nobody wrote about it. The fact that non-supernatural claims were written, at the same time, lend no credit to the validating the supernatural claims."Non sequitur?!

Interesting, but invalid logic. To test the logic, let's take it outside the narrow area you are using if for: the supernatural

Let's take an historical example: Gen. George McClellan's state of mind at Antietam. We can't read McClellan's mind, can we? What we have are things McClellan told people and what he did. Both sets of those are written down. IOW, people saying what McClellan said and saying what McClellan did.

So, we have McClellan pausing for a full day in front of Lee's army at Antietam without attacking. Then we have McClellan's order (what he told people) to the troops outlining an attack that used only about 1/3 of his troops. During the day we have reports of people asking for reserves to be committed, and McClellan refusing. We also have people saying McClellan refused to renew the battle against Lee the next day.

From all this we say that the "unseen" state of mind of McClellan was "cautious". How do we know he was cautious? Because the unseen thing caused McClellan to say and do things that were written down by others. And all of what was written down was about the Civil War! Well, it seems all our evidence for McClellan being cautious is from things that were written down in which it was declared that McClellan was cautious. The concept wouldn't even be there if people hadn't written it down!

The particular example you used is not only non-sequitor, it is strawman, Special Pleading, and Argument from Ridicule.

First, the concept of deity comes whether people write it down or not. The concept of Yahweh existed long before anyone wrote anything down.

Second, the attributes of Yahweh are conclusions based on either what 1) Yahweh told people, or 2) what Yahweh did. The same as the conclusion that McClellan was cautious comes from what McClellan told people and what he did.

Third, we accept such conclusions about non-supernatural events in history by this reasoning all the time. To reject it here is an example of Special Pleading.

addressing those by stating that those responses only create a circular and self-proving answer, and am left still with the question.

and what I am saying is that it is possible to create a non-circular argument. By focussing only on particular responses, all you are doing is addressing whether those individuals have a valid argument. You are avoiding addressing whether the claims are valid or whether there is a valid way to evaluate the claims. IOW, the non-sequitor that, because the responses have problems, that means that there is no non-circular answer and that you are still left with the question.

 

[lucaspa]

Well, if they want to convert someone to their God, I'm assuming that they are aware some go down harder than others.

How about if we do not want to "convert someone". I am not trying to convert you. I didn't seek you out to convert to Christianity, did I? Neither did anyone on this board. You came to us.

If anyone is trying to convert someone else, I would say it is you trying to convert us to atheism.

 

[lucaspa]

Again, the crossroads -or whatever you wanna call it- was only a feasible crossroad, because you already knew about it.

You wouldn't have know about "Faith", "gift of God" or even what to ask for, if it was not already programmed in your brain to do so.

So you are saying we are born with a desire to seek God?

What it sounds like is that you are repeating one of the major dogmas and myths of atheism: the only reason people are theists is because they were raised that way. The only way they have any idea about God is because other people told them about it.

The reason for the myth is obvious: 90% of people are theists and only 10% atheists/agnostics. This, on the surface, looks like the atheists just don't get it. They are so far in the minority that they must be wrong. So the myth is there to explain, other than the existence of God, why 90% of people are theists. Supposedly, if we had never heard of God, we wouldn't be theists.

This, of course, insults the intelligence of theists. Now atheists would have it that only 10% of the population -- them -- is capable of rational thought and making a rational decision on the evidence. That is not only arrogance, but flies against the data.

I am going to challenge the premise that people are theists only because they have heard of theism later. But for right now, let's accept that people only know of a "crossroads" because they have been told there is one. So what? Why do they take the theist branch? Knowing there is a crossroads does not mandate the people choose theism.

Now, there are examples of people either being atheistic or not knowing a particular religion. Raised in India and not knowing about Christianity, for instance or raised in Alabama and not knowing about Islam. People have personal experience of deity that convinces them to 1) either become Christians when they were atheists or 2) become a religion that they had not previously heard of, or if they had heard of it, didn't know anything beyond the name.

Those can't be explained by the idea that we uncritically adopt the religion we were raised in.