Your argument against "many paths to God"

ToddNotTodd said:

First show that Jesus existed. Then show that he was crucified. Then show that someone looked for the body afterward. Then show that the body was missing and the only explanation had to be that Jesus was resurrected. And by "show", I mean give enough evidence that any other conclusion would be seen as outrageous.

Click to expand...

I'll supply the evidence that you kmow and reject.

the evidence supporting Jesus’ crucifixion is, as Emory University New Testament scholar L. T. Johnson puts it, "overwhelming" (The Real Jesus [San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996], p. 125). Paula Frederickson, whose book From Jesus to Christ inspired the PBS special by the same name, declares, "The crucifixion is the strongest single fact we have about Jesus" (Society of Biblical Literature meeting, November 22, 1999). The crucifixion of Jesus is recognized even by the sceptical critics in the Jesus Seminar as--to quote Robert Funk--"one indisputable fact" (Jesus Seminar video).

Take Jesus' burial and empty tomb. These are both part of Mark's source for the story of Jesus' passion. According to Mark Allen Powell, the chair of the Historical Jesus section of the Society of Biblical Literature, "The dominant view is that the passion narratives are early and based on eyewitness testimony" (Journal of the American Academy of Religion 68 [2000]: 171). Specifically, with respect to the burial, Kendall and O'Collins note Bultmann, Fitzmeyer, Porter, Gnilka, Hooker, "and many other biblical scholars" who recognize a historically reliable core in the account of Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea. They observe that "every now and then" the burial story is dismissed as unhistorical, for instance by John Dominic Crossan; but notwithstanding, "The standard recent commentators on Mark (Ernst, Gnilka, Haenchen, Harrington, Hooker, Pesch, Schweizer, etc.) . . . do not invest him with the kind of creativity needed to invent the burial story. . ." (Daniel Kendall and Gerald O'Collins, "Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?" Biblica 75 [1994]: 240). In personal conversations with O'Collins and the renowned New Testament scholar Raymond Brown, both confirmed my judgement that only a small minority of scholars who have published on the subject would deny the historicity of Jesus' interment by Joseph of Arimathea. Similarly with respect to the empty tomb, already by the late 1970s Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist in the resurrection, was able to report, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb" (Die Osterevangelien--Geschichten um Geschichte (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), 49-50). The role of women in discovering that the tomb was empty has been especially persuasive to scholars. According to Raymund Schwager, "it has recently become usual to assess positively the women's role at the death of Jesus and on Easter morning," in contrast to the legend hypothesis (Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche [1993]: 436). As for the post-mortem appearances and the disciples' coming to believe that Jesus was risen, well, no one doubts those facts. For as Paula Frederickson (no conservative!) says, "The disciples' conviction that they had seen the Risen Christ . . . [is] historical bedrock, facts known past doubting" (Jesus of Nazareth [New York: Vintage, 1999], 264).
from
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/contemporary-scholarship-and-jesus-resurrection
also from above is:-
In a survey of over 2,200 publications on the resurrection in English, French, and German since 1975, Habermas found that 75% of the scholars surveyed accepted the historicity of the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb. Belief in the disciples' experiencing post-mortem appearances of Jesus is virtually universal.

Silmarien said:

The linchpin is objective value, I would say. If you are a theist and believe that morality has objective truth value, that truth value must be grounded in the nature of God. If God is conceived of as good, then the Problem of Evil comes into full force, and it is very easy to argue that a good God could be expected to take action to rescue Creation from the forces of entropy. There's only one religion that really fits that particular bill, though there are certainly less powerful versions elsewhere such as in the myth of Prometheus.

Anyway, that is how you get from your basic cosmological argument to philosophical support for Christianity in specific. I'm not sure how common it is to get all the way there on philosophy alone, at least outside of the really rarified Thomist circles, but it has been known to happen. I can come close, but at the end of the day, there are so many asterisks involved in my reasoning that it tends to end up a 50/50 coin flip.

Click to expand...

This may be because of the general difference between theists and atheists now... but I cannot but see this kind of thinking as very, well... backwards. It takes the observations we make about our condititions in the here and now... and try to shoehorn a certain kind of prefabricated belief system into it.

In this case: there IS a creation. It NEEDS to be rescued. A good God WOULD do that.
(And because I believe that God is good, because that is what my religion says, then obviously there must exist a good God who is going to rescue his creation. q.e.d.)

But almost nobody ever starts such an analysis from the other end, the beginning, the state where there isn't a creation, there isn't evil, there isn't a need for rescue. That's why I was so disappointed with the refusal of adstar earlier in this thread.
I am quite sure I know what his "logical argument for a deity with a plan for humanity" would look like: begging the question. "If we assume there there is a deity with plan, it is logical to conclude that there is a deity with a plan."

But if you don't already start with an assumption of that kind - be it "deity with plan" or "creation in need of rescue"... there is no reason, logical or otherwise, to get to this assumption.

Tolworth John said:

As for the post-mortem appearances and the disciples' coming to believe that Jesus was risen, well, no one doubts those facts. For as Paula Frederickson (no conservative!) says, "The disciples' conviction that they had seen the Risen Christ . . . [is] historical bedrock, facts known past doubting" (Jesus of Nazareth [New York: Vintage, 1999], 264).

Click to expand...

Could you tell me why Mark, the first gospel, left this "bedrock" event out entirely?

When the other gospels speak of the disciples seeing the resurrected Jesus, what is their source - aside from the forgery inserted into Mark?

cloudyday2 said:

No problem. I'm glad you replied earlier in the thread. It would be nice if you continue in the discussion, but I know it can be stressful and pointless if people are too far apart to persuade each other.

Click to expand...

I am always willing to repond to polite people cloudyday So if you have other questions please feel free to ask and i will do my best to offer an answer if i can..

Adstar said:

I am always willing to repond to polite people cloudyday So if you have other questions please feel free to ask and i will do my best to offer an answer if i can..

Click to expand...

Now why do I have problems believing your smooth words?

Adstar said:

I am not here in this thread to respond to athiests...

Click to expand...

Ah, that might be the reason.

Freodin said:

Now why do I have problems believing your smooth words?

Ah, that might be the reason.

Click to expand...

Well the atheist that was pestering me and refusing to simply accept that i had given my answer ( which was not to him by the way but to the OP ) was not at a polite person in my personal estimation.. I react to arrogant pushy people who try to crack a whip on me to get me to dance to their tune badly.. So i am open to seekers who are polite.. Not arrogant disrespectful atheists who are pushy.. I am not some slave under their command..

Adstar said:

Well the atheist that was pestering me and refusing to simply accept that i had given my answer ( which was not to him by the way but to the OP ) was not at a polite person in my personal estimation.. I react to arrogant pushy people who try to crack a whip on me to get me to dance to their tune badly.. So i am open to seekers who are polite.. Not arrogant disrespectful atheists who are pushy.. I am not some slave under their command..

Click to expand...

The atheist was politely asking you to present the argument that you only claimed to exist, corrected you - politely - when you tried to evade by claiming that you needed to "believe" to accept this argument that you never presented, and finally pointed out - still politely - that you, contrary to your next claim, didn't present this logical argument.

You are correct... you are not a "slave" to "dance to [my] tune". But before you make bold claims, and try to smear other people... remember that this exchange is open for all to see and make their own judgements.

I just love to reveal the double standards that some Christians show.

Freodin said:

The atheist was politely asking you to present the argument that you only claimed to exist, corrected you - politely - when you tried to evade by claiming that you needed to "believe" to accept this argument that you never presented, and finally pointed out - still politely - that you, contrary to your next claim, didn't present this logical argument.

You are correct... you are not a "slave" to "dance to [my] tune". But before you make bold claims, and try to smear other people... remember that this exchange is open for all to see and make their own judgements.

I just love to reveal the double standards that some Christians show.

Click to expand...

I presented the Argument ,, when i presented the Argument..... There is nothing more to the argument then what i wrote.. So demanding that i again present the Argument when i have already presented the argument is insane.. Demanding that somehow i present the argument in the some other way is pushy arrogant and insane all at once.. And there is nothing polite about his pushy demanding and entitled style..

I don't care if people make their own judgements.. They can say they are unconvinced by the argument if they like.. But when they start to try and dominate me and demand that i dance to their tune in a arrogant entitled way they are not going to get very much in the way of feedback..

As far as i am concerned my Answer was to an agnostic.. Someone who is not yet decided on the existence or non existence of God.. I don't care one iota if the argument i gave does not satisfy atheists..

Adstar said:

I presented the Argument ,, when i presented the Argument..... There is nothing more to the argument then what i wrote.. So demanding that i again present the Argument when i have already presented the argument is insane.. Demanding that somehow i present the argument in the some other way is pushy arrogant and insane all at once.. And there is nothing polite about his pushy demanding and entitled style..

Click to expand...

I really sorry.

This is what you wrote:
"If we believe there is only One God, then logically it can be argued that that God would have a Will for all mankind..."

Look, here it is "... THEN LOGICALLY IT CAN BE ARGUED ...".

This isn't an argument. Nothing else in that post is. It is just that claim that it can be argued.

I don't care if people make their own judgements.. They can say they are unconvinced by the argument if they like.. But when they start to try and dominate me and demand that i dance to their tune in a arrogant entitled way they are not going to get very much in the way of feedback..

As far as i am concerned my Answer was to an agnostic.. Someone who is not yet decided on the existence or non existence of God.. I don't care one iota if the argument i gave does not satisfy atheists..

Click to expand...

Let's take a step back. Let's talk about something that doesn't involve God.

We are in court. As a defendant, a witness, an expert, prosecutor... it doesn't matter. But we are faced with people who are "not yet decided".
How are we going to change that? You have already shown an interest to do that... you have responded to a question.

So, here we are. Let's say you are the defendant. "We can make the logical argument that the defendant, adstar, is guilty of a heinous murder.", I proclaim.

That's it. You are guilty, aren't you? There is a logical argument that shows you are guilty!

Or I am the defendant and you are accusing me of heinous murder: "I can make the logical argument that Freodin is a murderer!"
I counter it with "Well, I can make the logical argument that I am innocent!"

Wouldn't you want to know what this argument was? Wouldn't you want the jury to hear and evaluate this argument? How is the jury meant to decide? Based on the certainty we make our statements? On the colour of our skin, whom they like more?


Or on the strength and validity of our logical argument?

That is all that I am asking for. Consider what your "logical argument" is and tell me. Is that really too much to ask? Even if I ask you to repeat yourself, is that too much to ask?

I readily admit that I expect that you cannot bring a valid logical argument for what you claimed. But my expectations can be wrong. If they are wrong, I will be shown wrong by the argument you make. If they are right, then I can show that by logic and reason.

But without that, all you do is to confirm my preconceived ideas about a certain kind of Christians... and I guess not only mine.

cloudyday, I am quite surprised to see that you "agree" with adstar's position about his "logical argument".

Based on your other posts, it seems that you are not adverse to checking out arguments for and against claims. So perhaps you can tell me how a logical argument that a single God would have a "will" for all of humanity would look like?

Freodin said:

This may be because of the general difference between theists and atheists now... but I cannot but see this kind of thinking as very, well... backwards. It takes the observations we make about our condititions in the here and now... and try to shoehorn a certain kind of prefabricated belief system into it.

Click to expand...

My post specifically addresses how to get from philosophical theism to Christianity. People complain that the arguments for God only really establish deism, which is true, but only because the focus is always on the initial arguments, not the follow up ones. This is one of the follow ups, though rather simplified. I agree that it would be a very strange place to start, but I was specifically addressing @cloudyday2, who is certainly familiar with the arguments for theism in general but seemed a bit puzzled by the idea of arguing your way all the way to Christianity.

Freodin said:

In this case: there IS a creation. It NEEDS to be rescued. A good God WOULD do that.
(And because I believe that God is good, because that is what my religion says, then obviously there must exist a good God who is going to rescue his creation. q.e.d.)

Click to expand...

Eh, I avoided Christianity for a very long time, but have become more interested as of late in the idea of objective values. It's tied into the ideas of immanent teleology, the possible connection between rationality and morality, and a handful of other ideas that get developed in Scholastic philosophy specifically due to the Greek influence. I mean, not everyone believes stuff because Scripture says so.

If you want to talk about it more, let me know. I'm kind of dying of food poisoning right now, though, and will need to take a rain check!

cloudyday2 said:

I was only agreeing with his position that a person should be able to state an opinion without necessarily having academic sources and so on to support that opinion. I like to hear what people think even if they can't dot all the "i"'s and cross all the "t"'s. Of course it is reasonable to ask for explanations too - after all this is an apologetics forum. I have been in @Adstar 's shoes and it can feel like you are being picked on. That's no fun for anybody.

EDIT: To be honest, I don't remember the specifics of what @Adstar said earlier in the thread. Probably I don't find whatever was said to be persuasive, because I am not aware of anything I have ever heard arguing for Christianity that is very persuasive to me. The only reason I have ever had to believe in Christianity was my childhood indoctrination and some apparent hallucinations later in life. On the other hand, I have reasons to think that the historical Jesus would have probably disagreed with Christian theology. I think the historical Jesus was a doomsday Essene holy man who expected for God to send angels to defeat the Romans and install Jesus as the earthly Messiah. (Just my wild theory LOL)

Click to expand...

Oh, I do agree that everyone should be able to state their opinion freely.
But contrary to some people who like to live in a time of "alternative facts", I think when you make a claim about "facts", "proofs", or, in this case, "logical arguments", you should be able to produce them if asked for.
I also know that the term "expert" is almost considered an insult in some parts of the current culture... but I see so many people trying to usurp the authority that comes from using "science", "logic" and "rationality" without really understanding the mechanisms involved.
If that is "being picked on"... perhaps they should consider being a little more careful about their claims.

Silmarien said:

My post specifically addresses how to get from philosophical theism to Christianity. People complain that the arguments for God only really establish deism, which is true, but only because the focus is always on the initial arguments, not the follow up ones. This is one of the follow ups, though rather simplified. I agree that it would be a very strange place to start, but I was specifically addressing @cloudyday2, who is certainly familiar with the arguments for theism in general but seemed a bit puzzled by the idea of arguing your way all the way to Christianity.

Click to expand...

To be honest, I find that the idea of philosophical theism is quite often based on this very backward kind of thinking that I mentioned. Inevitably perhaps, but still.

Eh, I avoided Christianity for a very long time, but have become more interested as of late in the idea of objective values. It's tied into the ideas of immanent teleology, the possible connection between rationality and morality, and a handful of other ideas that get developed in Scholastic philosophy specifically due to the Greek influence. I mean, not everyone believes stuff because Scripture says so.

Click to expand...

If it works for you. I never found a convincing argument for the existence of "objective values". It seems a contradiction in terms to me.

If you want to talk about it more, let me know. I'm kind of dying of food poisoning right now, though, and will need to take a rain check!

Click to expand...

With pleasure. I hope you will get better soon.

cloudyday2 said:

Just out of curiosity what post by @Adstar was so over-the-top?

Click to expand...

Start with post #7
There he makes the statement that I want to have answered: that there is a "logical argument" from the existence of "only One God" to "God has a 'will' for all of mankind".

I disagree with this statement, because I cannot see how such an argument could be made. That's why I asked him in post #60

His response, in post #62 consisted in claiming that this "argument" would only work for believers. That is either incorrect, or would imply that there are additional unmentioned premises to this argument. I fear such premises would result in "begging the question"... that is, already assuming what you want to conclude. Here: "if we assume the existence of One God who has a plan for humanity, we can conclude that God has a plan for all of humanity".

I pointed out that this isn't the way logic works in my response to that, post #68.

He then claimed that he had already explained his thinking, which he very obviously had not done. My pointing that out he ignored, which I found rather funny when he started to claim that he would answer "polite" questions.