It's a difficult argument to make, but I feel fairly pleased with how I argued for this. If you're interested, you can watch a video of me making this argument during our most recent Sunday School class:
Could you give the premises that led to your conclusion? Or, have you done that already in another thread?
It's a difficult argument to make, but I feel fairly pleased with how I argued for this. If you're interested, you can watch a video of me making this argument during our most recent Sunday School class:
Very well. Let us assume this and see where it takes us.1. God exists - begin with this premise or assume it for the sake of argument.
Hmm.2. If God exists, God would communicate - argue for this (I argue for this in the video).
3. God has communicated in the Bible - I argue for this in the video. Argue for this by showing that the Bible is the only viable candidate for God's communication.
Very well. Let us assume this and see where it takes us.
Hmm.
So.
If God exists, He would communicate with us.
And what do you do if you want to communicate with people?
Apparently, you spend a couple of thousand years talking to one tiny group of people living in the desert, ignoring the rest of the world. There's China, for example, which has an advanced and literary civilisation, but you don't contact them. There's the Roman empire, which will become the foundation of the western world, but instead you choose to focus on one tiny group of illiterate sheepherders in the middle of nowhere, for centuries and centuries.
Then, you decided to incarnate to come down and live with them, delivering your message in person. At which point they kill you.
So you come back from the dead, inspire a small group of followers, and leave the job of communicating your existence to the rest of the world to them.
And now, here we are, two thousand years and countless religious wars later. Most of the humans in the world don't believe in you, and the ones that do all disagree with each other. Fortunately, they seem to have mostly gotten tired with slaughtering each other in the name of their disagreements, so that's something.
And this is your idea of how "if God were real, He would communicate with us" would play out in the real world, is it?
In the video I argue for premises 2 and 3. You should give it a peep.
Um, over here...
I gave your video a peep. You sight the 'Holy Spirit' at 13:50. You care not to engage Why should he, or virtually any person of disagreement, invest any time with you? You appear to register posts, but then often times do not address responses; especially if they raise any concerns or apparent conflicts with what you post.
Please keep in mind, this is an apologetics arena. You claim you teach apologetics, but then seem not to have any desire to have your own assertions challenged? Quite odd, if you ask me...
What is it I'm supposed to engage with?
Seriously?
You mention the "Holy Spirit" in your video, at 13:50. What do you have to say about the video I keep asking of you to watch? Did you watch it? I doubt it.
I'll summarize it for you...
Your apologetics arguments will likely not sway, or lend any further credence with someone whom does not already believe in the story line, like you do.
[YOUR] belief, that the Bible is true, likely begins and end with your own claims that you have been contacted by the 'Holy Spirit'. A point in which you gloss over in your lecture, but looks to be the ACTUAL cornerstone as to why YOU likely believe....?
So why don't we just cut to the chase, and discuss this topic? YOU can start by watching the 24 minute video
Lol.
Let me explain what this looks like from my perspective. I start a thread saying: "Hey let's talk about this video."
Then you jump in and say: "Naw, let's talk about THIS OTHER video."
And then you complain that I'm not engaging with your posts.
LOL!
Now allow me explain what you are actually doing. I engaged in your requested video. I even gave you a specific piece of evidence, which demonstrates I watched your video. At 13:50, you mention the "Holy Spirit'. Why do you not want to discuss what YOU asserted in your own provided video?
What I said about the Holy Spirit that you're referring to has nothing to do with the substance of the talk. It was a tangential point. To engage with that would be to totally derail this thread. So I have no interest in discussing that point here. If you engage with the substance of the video then I will respond.
Then might I highly suggest you modify your one hour video, -- where the first portion has nothing to do with your said actual premises Or at least ask that people only focus on a [specific time period] of the video.
To blankly post a one hour video, and expect a non-believer to watch the entire thing, while ignoring seemingly absurd blank assertions you make, and only patiently awaiting for you to finally get to the point(s) of your title post, is asking a little much, wouldn't you agree?
And furthermore, like I stated prior, I'm not playing 'bait-and-switch'. I explained clearly, in post #10, that your arguments here will likely fall on deaf ears. Both believers and non-believers will see little value, to sway such current positions, bases upon this argument.
So if you wish to engage the crux of WHY you actually believe what you believe, let's do this. If not, then expect very little traction or movement from your given post, I reckon
Yes it's asking a lot. But the wonderful thing about CF is that you are not obligated to engage in a thread that you're not interested in. You don't have to watch it or respond to it!
I give reasons for believing premises 2 and 3 in the substance of the video.