Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Where is the Disconnect?

As a human who would like to be as open-minded and skeptical as I can be, I have a question to ask y'all here.

I've been following this comment thread for a few reasons:

  1. I linked everyone there because this is my friend's blog
  2. I am interested in what people have to say about it
  3. I know who anonymous (a.k.a. "skippy) is.

There are also others arguing with a certain person there and I tried to take a step back and I am still a bit - let's say - frustrated with the way the arguments are going.

Here's the thing: as a deconverted xian and someone who must embrace logic and proof as a skeptic, where is the disconnect in these arguments? I assume it's a disconnect because I see it as someone who does not want to answer any question but wants to use  - for the lack of a better word - slippery language to evade offering proof for the existence of a god. I could be wrong, which is why I am writing this.

And I biased? Yes, a bit. But who isn't going into these kinds of arguments? So taking that into consideration, and to argue and debate fairly, let's all pick up these debates and look at them from all sides and give feedback. 

Can we civilly, and rationally critique these ongoing arguments? I am looking to better myself in how I defend or present my current belief (or lack of belief) and perhaps this could be a help for the newer folks here wishing to learn something and not necessarily bash Ray Comfort (although that is also a lot of fun).

Ray is a boob. See? It's fun!

Thanks to everyone for their time.

199 comments:

  1. The point is that there are things like the laws of logic , uniformity of nature , the validity of our senses and cognitive faculties and inductive reasoning that we all use and take for granted. Atheists cannot account for where ths=ese things came from and why they are justified in believing them.
    christians can as they know the laws of logic reflect god's perfectly logical nature and as Christians- we know that designer would have given us accurate senses and cognitive abilities. We know we can use indutive logic because god promises us that we can rely on the uniformity of nature and since god is unchanging none of that stuff will change.
    When atheist attempt to use the aforementoned assumptions, you are actually stealing from us
    Scmike also challenge them to account for where the absolute laws of logic and mathematics came from.
    No-one was able to respond (except for Maragon who said that they weren't absolute which turns it into a logical catastrophe).
    To put it shortly Christians cann account for these things and atheists can't.
    Christians 1, Atheists 0.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Obviously I'm pretty biased - but I thought your question was an interesting one, so I showed it to my fiance, who has been following this debate sine I began it.
    I was intrigued by his answer, and I think he has a great point, so I wanted to share it with you.

    Here's the major disconnect; we're having a debate, SCMike is not.

    Think about what constitutes a debate: two people with equally valid view points having a frank exchange of ideas, information and evidence.

    SCMike has shown time and time again that he is completely disinterested in learning about his opponents viewpoints or substantiating his. For Mike, this isn't a debate, it's a witnessing tool.

    His stock phrases that he keeps resorting to, regardless of whether they make sense in the context he's using them, are attempts on his part to lead you into these 'thought exercises' - which he hopes will lead you to christianity.

    He's not actually interested in hearing your points or objectively examining his own - Mike's only interest is your conversion, which he sees as necessary.

    While there are other disconnects and issues with his tactics, I think that this is the most salient point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mrfreethinker,

    So basically you didn't pay attention to any of the debate.

    Chew on this:

    I can scientifically prove to you that the humans senses, regardless of religious conviction can and are frequently fooled. Science will tell us that your chances of being incorrect about what you perceive are just as great as anyone else's.
    You are using these fallible human senses in the exact same way that atheists are.

    You state that atheists pre-suppose 'the laws of logic(which I deconstructed and no one could refute), the uniformity of nature(which I addressed via falsifiability), the validity of cognitive faculties(actually we dispute the validity of cognitive faculties) and inductive reasoning(so, you have a problem with using evidence to prove your point?)' I would say that you presuppose far more on far less than any atheist does.

    I can scientifically prove that you are fallible. And that your mind is capable of deceiving you and that you are capable of holding false beliefs about things.
    And yet, you use these sub-par tools to come to the conclusions that
    a) the bible is the work of an infallible being, b)that this infallible being is somehow talking to you through said book, c) and that it's perfectly fine that you use your fallible reasoning skills to come to conclusions that you believe to be infallible.

    In short you are using your fallible senses to attempt to gain information from a book written by fallible humans that asserts that your senses aren't fallible because the book written by fallible humans said so.

    You assume in your premise that you can trust your fallible senses when they tell you that you can come to infallible conclusions.

    I say that none of you are any more certain of anything than anyone else is - you just pretend to be.

    ReplyDelete
  4. mrfreethinker,

    Whatever your, or Scmike's angle is, he said he could prove god exists and then didn't.

    Or hasn't til this post.

    How honest is that?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have read the posts, and to be honest I question whether I am using a presupposition every time I look at something. That being said I am still an agnostic atheist.

    What I don't understand about your argument here mrfreethinker is that you claim christians can account and atheists can't. I have seen some very good reasons by maragon and others that do account for these things. But even if they couldn't, why is your accounting correct?

    Muslims would say that they account for it because of Allah. Hindu's could claim any one of their many gods. Buddhist's could claim the same through meditation and oneness with the universe. Why is your claim different than any of these?

    From what I have seen, the only people giving a natural explanation is the atheists. All these other claims are of the supernatural. How do you prove the supernatural?

    Without getting into everything that was said in the other thread, science has proven to be reliable. If it wasn't we couldn't make predictions on how things would react and thus we couldn't have any technological advances. In a world of the supernatural, how can you advance when anything can change at any second?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Bob,

    I'm a bit unclear - are you simply asking (in effect) "WTF is up with SCMike"?

    Assuming "yes", I'm going to answer some of MFT's comments:

    The point is that there are things like the laws of logic , uniformity of nature , the validity of our senses and cognitive faculties and inductive reasoning that we all use and take for granted. Atheists cannot account for where ths=ese things came from and why they are justified in believing them.

    Logic and reason are tools, nothing more. They are not things which can be labelled by the terms "true" "false" "good" or "bad". How silly would it sound for someone to argue Logic is false...

    They are merely tools by which truth or falsehood may be assessed. The assessment isn't absolute - a logical argument may lead to the "wrong" conclusion. As such, considering it to be more like a yard stick than a court judge best represents its capabilities, and value to humanity in general.

    Although you might be able to argue that God created our brains, that deity did not create logic or reason; man did. Just as we may have been given the ability to think, humanity created the methods by which thoughts may be communicated from person to person

    We call this "language".

    Logic is merely the language of thought, nothing more, nothing less. Atheists account for this language by correctly pointing out that man created it.

    Were it otherwise, you wouldn't see the slow evolution of western (re. Greek) logic over the last few millennia. Logic would simply have existed...

    In reality, any system which requires that you first believe in it before you're able to see the truth of it is illogical by nature (though not necessarily irrational).

    ReplyDelete
  7. BTW, by assuming yes, I only meant "Yeah, I think that guy is a fruit loop as well".

    In short, he's trying to argue for presupp ideology, but he's not doing a particularly effective job of it. Believing it to be bunk, I think I could actually make a better case than our fundie friend...

    ReplyDelete
  8. whateverman,

    Thanks for the reply, however, I am not asking "WTF" about Scmike. I am simply asking why he said in one post he could supply proof for god and then failed to do so.

    In whichever arena you judge it (as far as I know) no judge would say that this is honest.

    Moving on, I am not asking "WTF" about Scmike, per se, but about the dialog that was going on because no progress seemed to have been made. Anyone saying they can offer proof of god's existence and then say that the proof was that absolute proof isn't possible (paraphrased) is kind of a cop out. Like saying proof my invisible pixie friend exists is that it is invisible.

    I have no idea if this could be settled. I just wanted to take a step back and try to see where the disconnect is/was.

    But I really appreciate the feedback!

    ReplyDelete
  9. As the faithful Raytractors will point out, I'm verbose - and this is because I love debate/discussion. So, feedback will often be offered by me without any request in the first place :)

    SCMike fails in two ways: first, he claims his faith as his proof. No matter how he or other activist Christians like to pretend otherwise, all of their arguments boil right down to that simple fact:

    They believe they're correct, and logic has no teeth when it comes to showing otherwise.

    Babbles has proven the existence of God by holding up his faith that it is so; which is to say, he hasn't proven anything.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bob said...

    " whateverman,

    Thanks for the reply, however, I am not asking "WTF" about Scmike. I am simply asking why he said in one post he could supply proof for god and then failed to do so."

    He thinks he has proven god. "By the impossibility of the contrary." No really, he thinks that's proof.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maragon,

    Thanks! Now...I am new at all of this, but what does impossibility to the contrary mean exactly?

    Forgive my lack of knowledge...I am still quite a new skeptic. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. They've eagerly picked up the presuppositionalism that STB popularized among them. Because it doesn't matter that nobody else agrees it to its validity outside of a presupposed logical framework. All that matters is that they can use it to make arguments go on forever if they like, and claim victory when their opponent has the mercy to walk away.
    All they are saying is, if God caused logic, then logic is caused by God.
    The counter is, logic and God are both man-made concepts - using the latter to explain the former is useless when you have no data to support the pre-existence of God or the simultaneous creation of both. If logic can be created, then logic can also logically pre-exist before God. So one can just as well argue that logic caused God or whatever you like. Reality is what matters. And that's where we see not a 'Logos' hovering in a void or streaming from a great eye in the sky, but we see a gradual development of logical methods of thinking, explaining and testing by humans. One very small fraction of these humans came up with the idea that one being has caused all. It's an idea, not an explanation, and not mandated by any 'absolute logic' - just like 'absolute logic' itself is an idea and not an explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To me it seems like an argument from personal incredulity. He can't imagine logic without the explanation of god, even though it has been presented, so because he can't imagine it, then it can't exist.

    That is how I understood SCMike's argument.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ironically, argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. //Thanks! Now...I am new at all of this, but what does impossibility to the contrary mean exactly?

    Forgive my lack of knowledge...I am still quite a new skeptic. ;-)//
    Look up reductio ad absurdum.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bob said...
    "Maragon,

    Thanks! Now...I am new at all of this, but what does impossibility to the contrary mean exactly?

    Forgive my lack of knowledge...I am still quite a new skeptic. ;-)"

    The way that SCMike utilizes it - it basically means nothing.
    It's merely a way for him to bypass the step in the debate where he would have to provide evidence for his assertions.

    Consider this usage:

    "SCMike's arguements are wrong, because of the impossibility of the contrary. It is impossible that SCMike is not wrong.
    Any attempt to refute this assertion presupposes that SCMike could be CORRECT - but seeing as he can't, any refutation fails."

    I'm employing the same usage of the argument that he is.

    Essentially I'm not PROVING anything - but I have given myself a very convient way to ignore any objections, haven't I?

    Hope that helps.

    ReplyDelete
  17. none of you are any more certain of anything than anyone else is - you just pretend to be

    Cue the renewed fervor...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Guys,

    I know I have said repeatedly that I dislike insulting. But now I cannot claim that anymore. Now I have broken that part of myself because some people have to be labeled according to their faculties. MrFreeThinker is such a person, and I have insulted the guy already. No need to repeat.

    Bob, look at MrFreeThinker's post. All he does is assert that we cannot account for absolute laws of logic, that Maragon said there is no such thing, that such is a logical catastrophe, and that, since nobody else even attempted to account for such thing, then they win. Yet, their "accounting" is nothing more than unfounded assertions too.

    I would need way too much space to explain this clearly, but the whole thing is mostly a construct to never debate anything. An attempt at showing us that we steal from their "worldview" in order to use logic and math (which are not absolute at all, which is not a logical catastrophe, since we know lots of circumstances where they do work).

    This "logical catastrophe" assertion is but one example of their black and white view of the abstractions they try to attribute to their God (they fail to demonstrate that only their god would account for them, by the way, the construct is aimed at atheists). They will use their black and white interpretations each and every time you try to show them wrong, laugh, and insist on their fallacy.

    Once you note this, you know there is no true arguing, and that any attempt to make them truly think is worthless. The only way of dealing with them is t use their own tactics then quit. They will claim victory anyway, but that does not make them right.

    So, why do people insist on the arguing? because it seems so easy to show their problems! I tried once, then I just started constructing probing questions to find out more about the strategy. But that is the most you can do. Embracing the discussion thinking that your point is clear is futile. They have no minds.

    For one thing, the "demonstration" of their god's existence is that, since we cannot account for such and such, their god exists. Why? because, they think, it is impossible to account for such and such without their god.

    I left lots out, but hope this helps.

    Now, whenever I get something like "before we enter this discussion I need t know how do you account for the laws of logic" I would answer: "if you agree with me that logic works, let us not waste our time on that, if you do not, there is no arguing/learning possible, and I end it here."

    They ave an answer ready, but then, why continue?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bob,
    I tend to be one that reduces arguments into the lowest denominator (which can be problematic at times) and it is my opinion that the presuppositionaist argument that SCMike trots out all the time is merely a philosophical argument.

    First of all, fundies tend to butcher logic because they think it is sly. They can't prove anything so they invent their argument to try to show you cannot trust your own senses. It makes no sense. This is their delusion.

    They think that if these arguments can't be answered, it proves them right, when in reality, of course these philosophical arguments have no answers That's Why They Are Philosophical Arguments.

    Fundies are all the time declaring they have proof of God, but their proofs are merely philosophical arguments- you know,
    The cosmological argument,
    The teleological argument, The ontological argument, and etc.

    The presuppositionalist Argument is no different.

    Warning: Anecdotal Story
    My wife's cousin is a preacher and I asked if he heard of presuppositionalism. He said yes, he heard of it but if he would preach it in his church they would probably tar and feather him!

    Presuppositionalism is far out, bat shit crazy, lunatic fringe thinking.

    It's one of those arguments that when one first hears of it, it is quite interesting, kinda like, "Can God make a stone so big he cannot lift it?"

    But, the novelty quickley wears off and we are hit with the true essence, the futilness, the absurditiy. So saith the Frog :)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks GE!

    So, by their logic: without god, we have no valid sensory perception and any conclusion we make is somehow tainted and less relevant?

    Strange.

    How'd they come to the knowledge of god with the limited faculties they had before god? It's kind of a vicious circle, isn't it?

    Fascinating nonetheless...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks Froggle!

    The question, then, is: how can we disarm this fruitless technique of argument?

    ReplyDelete
  22. The question, then, is: how can we disarm this fruitless technique of argument?

    You don't have to. No matter how sound or convincing your argument is, they won't budge. It's useless. Move on.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Fundies are all the time declaring they have proof of God, but their proofs are merely philosophical arguments

    I don't even give them that much credit.

    It's like a kid in a costume store. He tries on various stuff; one makes him look scary, another makes him look funny, on and on it goes. At the end of the day, when he's about to go to bed, he's exactly what he started the day as: himself.

    Fundies adopt arguments because it makes them appear to have valid points. "Hey, I never really thought about it like that!" - and there's the opening that lets them talk about their beliefs. And yet, if you press the argument and point out the flaws, you will eventually back them into the same corner they started in: their argument is nothing more than "I have faith that this is true".

    They only wear philosophy and logic/reason as garments; they're cast aside when no longer useful.

    As a quick aside, there's a goal behind Babbles' attempts to get us to question the validity of logic & reason; it's that we have no way of knowing for 100%-right-down-to-our-skivvies sure about anything. If you accept this (and it's worth considering), you then have to wonder "Well, HTF do I know about anything?"

    After a few hours, you're curled into the fetal position, overwhelmed by the complexities of your navel.

    The real problem with this argument is not that it's invalid; it's that no one chooses to live their lives (atheists OR fundamentalists) as if nothing is knowable. We're all very pragmatic about the nature of reality - we don't require 100% factual certainty in order to know that crossing the road in heavy traffic might get you creamed by some asshat in an SUV.

    So - when Babbles tries to question the nature of our certainty, pay close attention to the fact that he's not willing to live by the methodology he's suggesting. He absolutely will not walk through life assuming he can't know anything.

    That's the real scam. He attempts to get you to accept something which he wont accept himself. Once you do, he's got an "in", and then starts talking about his faith in the Bible.

    Sorry again for the diatribe. Solipsism pissed me off to no end :p

    ReplyDelete
  24. Maragon,

    I thought you'd solved this problem with your whole "If Sye/SCMike/Fundie was hit on the head by a rock..." thing. No?

    The whole 'how can you know that you know that you know...' spiel is so ridiculous, I don't understand how some of you have the patience to keep going back to it.

    Besides this, I thought there were reasonable explanations within an evolutionary framework to establish why we frame the world in the way we do? G_E, I'm sure you've discussed this before.

    The whole thing smacks of faux-intellectual posturing in place of a sensible argument; I didn't expect any better though.

    They really do say the darndest things, don't they?

    ReplyDelete
  25. They really do say the darndest things, don't they?

    Especially when you consider that they're all variations on the same thing: they believe in the validity of the Bible, and don't require proof.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bob said...
    Thanks Froggle!

    The question, then, is: how can we disarm this fruitless technique of argument?

    October 16, 2008 12:22 PM


    Craig said...
    The question, then, is: how can we disarm this fruitless technique of argument?

    You don't have to. No matter how sound or convincing your argument is, they won't budge. It's useless. Move on.

    I tend to agree with Craig even though I have been critical of (especially) fundamentalism for almost 40 years now I didn't think it would take this long.)

    I have normally reserved my efforts, telephone calls, letters, emails, donations to Americans United, etc. to combat the religious right's incursions on the public schools.

    Nowdays I'm an equal opportunity religon basher.

    There was a time that I was more diplomatic because I thought it best not to annoy moderate christians but decided: fuck them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. //Fundies are all the time declaring they have proof of God, but their proofs are merely philosophical arguments- you know,
    The cosmological argument,
    The teleological argument, The ontological argument, and etc.//
    Don't you like philosophy. I do think it is really important. Search for truth and all that. we could not know truth without it.
    //Here's the major disconnect; we're having a debate, SCMike is not.//
    Of course. Now youguys realise the problem. Mike believes things like logic and proof objectively exist while you guys don't (or don't care to account for why they exist). why debate god's existence at all? He could subjectively exist and not exist at the same time.
    In case you guys didn't get it Mike was saying that all proofs appeal to logic and such. Without god there would be no objective logic and thus it would be impossible to prove anything. So by reductio ad absurdum god exists. (or the debate is pointless)

    I would like you guys to read over your posts and think it over. You guys live in a world where you have to use logic and mathematics and induction to get by but live in a worldview where you cannot account for the presence of any of these things.
    Scmike tries to point this out to you guys and you guys get so harsh.
    The only one I see who tried to account for anything is Maragon (to her credit) but I didn't see her touch anything on induction.
    maragon thinks logic does not objectively exist and is just a subjective tool come up with by a group of humans. But how does Maragon justify using this tool? An appeal to consequences. She likes the results so she uses it.

    And I've seen none of you justify induction or logic here . You all just take it on blind faith.( the same thing you accuse the fundies of doing).

    ReplyDelete
  28. I would like you guys to read over your posts and think it over. You guys live in a world where you have to use logic and mathematics and induction to get by but live in a worldview where you cannot account for the presence of any of these things.

    Logic and reason are human constructs.

    How many more times will I have to say it before you stop accusing this group of refusing to do so?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Maragon it was my claim that our senses are reliable as humans(let me define reliable as accurately reflecting reality in the majority of the time).I accept it because god has revealed it to me. You accept it on blind faith. I don't think anyone claimed Christians had better senses.
    And I did not need to use those tools.God could have revealed it to me.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ok whateverman.
    Logic is a subjective human construct.
    If so how can we use it to prove or disprove something that objectively exists?
    What makes our logic any more valid than that come up by the aliens on Necron 9?

    ReplyDelete
  31. mrfreethinker,

    A couple of questions, if I may? (feel free to ask anything in return)

    When and how did God let you know that your perceptive tools were reliable?

    Does this knowledge mean that no True Christian can ever be incorrect about a matter of logic/reasoning?

    Do you reject the idea that the human brain has evolved the capacity for abstract thought and, as such, has become able to grasp concepts such as; numbers, logic, knowledge etc. in a useful (for survival) way?

    Thanks in advance!

    ReplyDelete
  32. In case you guys didn't get it Mike was saying that all proofs appeal to logic and such. Without god there would be no objective logic and thus it would be impossible to prove anything. So by reductio ad absurdum god exists. (or the debate is pointless)

    I will ask again, even if I give you this, how is this proof that the God of the Bible exists? Does this not work for Zeus, Allah, or Odin?

    ReplyDelete
  33. mrfreethinker,

    I'm not sure if I completely understand where you are coming from and that is the cool part about learning. So help me understand.

    If I understand what you are saying correctly: how can fundies talk to and about god as if he were a person (using "he" and the fact that he sees and hears)and giving god very human traits but yet cannot show anyone a physical body? I don't think they are being metaphorical when they say that god is as real as you or me, etc.

    "Without god there would be no objective logic and thus it would be impossible to prove anything."

    How can you know this and what is the proof/reason?

    I fear I may have started it all over again....

    ReplyDelete
  34. Logic is a subjective human construct.
    If so how can we use it to prove or disprove something that objectively exists?


    Let's be careful of the word "subjective".

    Logic and reasons are tools for the manipulation of language; by using them to analyze some written/spoken word, we may assess the veracity of that word.

    Will they give abolute truth or falsehood? No, just approximations. Are they reliable? A tool is as reliable as the way in which it's used; using a ruler to mix a 500 gallon vat of paint will work, but certainly not very well.

    Evidence for this can be seen in the evolution of western philosophy over the last few thousand years. It's not like Logic and Reason appeared as absolutes and worked from day one. Humanity has been establishing "the logical" by experimentation.

    Solipsism being a pretty good example of this. Only through the use of reason, we determined that nothing can be determined to be real. Thus, it was rejected.

    Humanity has been identifying the rules of logic and reason through experimentation. Those rules occasionally change - and this is evidence that L&R are not absolute or objective.

    ---

    How can we know if our logic is "logical"? Only through (hopefully honest) analysis; introspection, peer review, the presence or absence rules that were broken, etc.

    And having quantified that logic, we can still only accept the result as a "best effort" - not absolute truth.

    ---

    Quantum mechanics has shown that the cat is both alive and dead. Logic would guffaw at such an "obviously ridiculous" statement - and yet here we are. The fundamental of nature appears to be illogical

    .. as we've identified the rules of logic to date.

    ReplyDelete
  35. PS. by "Thus it was rejected", I meant "Solipsism". Rejecting reality is not a rational way to live.

    ReplyDelete
  36. one more thing...

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html

    ReplyDelete
  37. Since the thread I'm still commenting in was brought up, I figured I'd explain my reasoning for still conversing with SCMike.

    I decided to stop trying to debate him logically, and start applying his own arguments to his position.

    Guess what? It requires absolutely no thought. None at all. Not a bit. I can feel my brain atrophying every single time I make a new post.

    What's even scarier? It's fun.

    ReplyDelete
  38. MFT,
    "You all just take it on blind faith."

    No, we experience and we observe it working. We can see that illogical choices are dangerous.

    fundies always try to project their world view onto the non-theists-
    You believe on blind faith- absurd
    Atheism is a religion- absurd

    The flabblegab you engage in reminds me all to hell of Rousas Rushdooney. He gained a lot of popularity but was merely a gifted sophist crackpot.

    You argument is strictly philosophical and has no merit as a valid truth and is not falsifiable. It is merely a crackpot circular argument.

    It does nothing to prove the existence of a god.

    More than anything, I see presuup used a lot as an attention getting device.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Oops. I went spastic and hit the publish button by accident-
    Anyhoo,

    Let's just say that presupp is correct. You get it your way. I totally agree with you.

    I know born again fundies that can barey wipe their own asses, make irrational decisions, and use failed logic to their own detriment. Thus it doesn't matter if one can account for it or not, it simply does not matter.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Why, Mrfreethinker, there you are – I’ve been looking for you!

    Now ‘fess up, you dreadful tease: Where are you hiding that evidence for the existence of your supernatural friend?

    You remember: you claimed you would have NO PROBLEM producing it. You made your claim thusly, on the thread "A Question for Theists" (October 3, 2008). Specifically, your claim was:

    MrFreeThinker said...

    I came to the conclusion in many different ways. Mostly because of the inner witness of the holy spirit.
    But I have no problem providing evidence for a creator.
    October 3, 2008 11:49 PM


    Now here we are two weeks later and I still haven’t seen diddly. I declare, what's a gal supposed to think?

    Better come across pretty soon or I’ll start thinking that your supernatural friend is imaginary.

    ReplyDelete
  41. MrFreeThinker said...

    "Maragon it was my claim that our senses are reliable as humans(let me define reliable as accurately reflecting reality in the majority of the time)."

    Well, if you're going to redefine it as such, then you and I have no conflict.
    About most things, in most cases, our senses are reliable.
    They are not, however, infallible and they can and are fooled.

    "I accept it because god has revealed it to me."

    But you're accepting it based on your senses, which we've established can be fooled.

    "You accept it on blind faith."

    What am I accepting on blind faith?

    "And I did not need to use those tools. God could have revealed it to me."

    Or you just think he did, because your fallible humans senses fooled you into believing as such.

    If you accept that our senses are fallible, then how can you say that we can and do know 'some' things for certain?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Man oh man...MFT stepped in some deep doo-doo with Weemaryanne aaaaaand Maragon at the same time!

    MFT, little tip- You are way over your head with those two cookies.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Q,
    You said,
    "Guess what? It requires absolutely no thought. None at all. Not a bit. I can feel my brain atrophying every single time I make a new post.
    What's even scarier? It's fun."

    I know! Rex found out the same thing! I've done it on many occasions at a few venues doing "undercover" work.

    Be careful though. I've heard horror stories from people that found it so desireable and easy, they went "over."

    Kinda like an undercover drug cop. They have to do a little bit of stuff and next thing you know, you're one of "them."

    Be careful

    Frog-along-cassidy

    ReplyDelete
  44. That tickles me to no end. MFT getting his ass kicked all over this blog by two little girls from Canada.

    Ya gotta love em.

    I wanna say that I have met the most interesting and engaging people of all my (western hemisphere)travels while on trips to Toronto and other parts of Canada. So...cosmopolitan... might describe it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "I know! Rex found out the same thing!"

    What's particulary scary about this case, though, is that I'm not pretending to agree with him or anything like that. I'm arguing against him.

    I'm just using his style of argument: questioning his ability to rationalise logic and reason, as he's been doing to us.

    I tried using condecending insults and multiple smilies as well at first, but that got boring and watered down my arguments

    ReplyDelete
  46. @ MrFreethinker

    First you ask the definition of 'The impossibility of the contrary'. Impossibility in philosophical terms is "A proposition is impossible if it could not have been true."

    So the impossibility of the contrary is 'the contrary position could not have been true."

    However merely to make the statement 'My evidence is the impossibility of the contrary' is argument by assertion. It makes as much sense as me saying 'My evidence is the Great Bunny Rabbit of Logic told me so. Evidence does NOT equal assertion.

    Second you do realise that presuppositionalism has already been dealt with by the Euthyphro dilemma?

    Allow me to explain. The dilemma is this. Is God rational because everything he does is defined as rational or because He always follows the rules of logic?

    If you're answer is the first one then the rules of logic are arbirary. If God wanted to change the rules tomorrow he could. In which case to say logic is absolute means that God hasn't changed His mind yet. If that's the way you want to go then NO ONE including christians can use logic to assert anything.

    Or

    You could argue that God is rational because he always follows the rules of logic. But that means the rules are independent of God. So anyone can discover such rules & use them. It doesn't require God in order to justify the use of logic.

    So which one do you assert? :

    ReplyDelete
  47. Q,
    You said,
    "What's particulary scary about this case,...."

    I can see how you are "drilling down" into that quagmire. I respect that totally.

    One thing we have in common is that we are both students of human nature.
    A never ending source of amazement.............

    ReplyDelete
  48. "A never ending source of amazement..."

    And amusement, too. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Dear guys,

    Sorry to leave you alone for so long, but this is a very busy time (lots of fun, but busy).

    Bob,

    So, by their logic: without god, we have no valid sensory perception and any conclusion we make is somehow tainted and less relevant?

    Actually, no. Their claim is that we ALL get logic and this and that from their god, and that we just deny it (unrighteously). And, sorry to contradict Maragon, they could not care less about converting us (depending on the presupp in question), the most hard core among them just want to demonstrate "oir denial."

    Also, note how MrFreeThinker uses that "you guys live in a worldview that cannot account for these things." He does not know that, they even have a preconceived idea of what the atheists think. Also, any intent we do at explaining what we really think is fruitless. They already have their minds set, and we do believe what they think we believe (a random universe of sorts).

    Of course, logic and math are abstractions we have made in order to manage thoughts and numerology. They have been perfected through years of use and misuse, and through fighting the likes of the presupps. For instance, to be able to quickly note where the sophists were tricking logic.

    These abstractions try to reflect some reality, and allow us to go further. We often find them to fail on some instances. Then we improve them. In math, for instance, philosophers have gone to the point of suggesting the rule that you cannot use a system to prove the same system, because that, from experience, leads to paradoxes. Of course, the presupps ignore this because otherwise their "perfect" abstraction is no longer perfect, and no longer reflects their god (but I bet they are working on it).

    Note again that MrFreeThinker insists on the black and white interpretation: if they are not "objective" then they cannot be used. He will never accept that we can use imperfect systems, as long as we stay within their limits of applicability. It is pretty much like saying that Neutonian laws of motion cannot be used because Eistein showed them to be "wrong." Yet, we know that they work quite well for problems that are far from those where relativity is necessary.

    I hope this helps.

    ExpatMatt,

    Besides this, I thought there were reasonable explanations within an evolutionary framework to establish why we frame the world in the way we do? G_E, I'm sure you've discussed this before.

    He, yes, there are reasonable explanations. Maybe if you take a look at www.ted.com a talk by Dawkins about strange things. Otherwise we talk about it some other time.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Oh, about "disarming":

    1. Keep your answers within one sentence.

    2. Do not accept that you need their permission to use logic.

    3. Use their exact system to answer, but follow rule "1."

    That will not truly work, but will infuriate/frustrate them at some point, and they will quit. Do not try to win, just pass the ball back. Keep your cool.

    That is the most you can expect to do. Their construct is such that the more you write the more they will ignore you, and the more you give them to restate their stupidity and avoid answering any valid points.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  51. @ G.E

    I think mrfreethinker is confusing two different terms.

    He used the term 'objective' as though it had the same meaning as absolute. It's an easy mistake to make. At least that's my excuse for having made the same mistake. :D

    But the terms possess completely different meaning:
    objective
    • adjective 1 not influenced by personal feelings or opinions. 2 not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.

    Whereas absolute truth means something which is true in all times & in all places.

    Not exactly the same thing guys.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Chris,

    Oh I know that. Pay closer attention and you will notice that he, and scmike, and Sye, have confused and intertwined a logical fallacy with a sentence commonly used in a very different context and meaning. Yet, they think they are still talking about such logical fallacy. (Maybe it is just part of their dishonest trickery? Hoping we will not notice?)

    (no, I am not about to say which one, just for the fun of seeing them doing it again and again)

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  53. @Chris
    I was using the 2nd definition of objective
    2 not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
    Maragon and Quasar claimed they (logic and mathematical concepts) were dependent on human mind. So that was what I was addressing.
    @GE
    //Then we improve them. In math, for instance, philosophers have gone to the point of suggesting the rule that you cannot use a system to prove the same system, because that, from experience, leads to paradoxes//
    Could you direct me to more material on this? I'm genuinely interested :)
    //He will never accept that we can use imperfect systems, as long as we stay within their limits of applicability.//
    Then why don't you guys stop dancing around and explain what they are, where they come from, why they are valid and what their limits of applicability are please.
    @Chris
    //Is God rational because everything he does is defined as rational or because He always follows the rules of logic?//
    Neither. The Laws of logic are a reflection of god's unchanging nature. Rationality is based on god's nature. Sc mike addresses this

    @ Weemaryanne.
    I directed you to my post providing historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Here are the links again
    http://facilis.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/introduction-to-the-resurrection/
    http://facilis.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/7/

    @Froggie
    //Atheism is a religion- absurd//
    I never claimed that.
    //No, we experience and we observe it working. //
    Now you're using induction. Can you account for it or are you just talking out of your but?

    @Quasar
    //Quantum mechanics has shown that the cat is both alive and dead. Logic would guffaw at such an "obviously ridiculous" statement - and yet here we are. The fundamental of nature appears to be illogical
    .. as we've identified the rules of logic to date.//
    believe it or not I think it s one of the better arguments against it ( I'm surprised no presented it to Scmike). Given the nature of this discovery I would say that it is more likely that the research in this field is incomplete rather than the cat have violated logic.
    But the more important question is ( courtesy Scmike) can the law of non-contradiction apply and not apply to the cat at the same time? :)

    There are a lot of posts here. I was wondering- Did anyone here try to account for induction? I searched the posts and

    ReplyDelete
  54. Oh and this is to all you skeptics who bit the bullet and said that logic was subjective. Don't let me hear any of you asking any Christians for "proof". Because any proof any Christian would have to offer would have to appeal to logic ( which you guys think is a subjective convention)

    ReplyDelete
  55. Ah, I see now. Logic is a subjective human construct instead of being the nature of some supernatural superbeing, therefore it is completely and utterly useless in every way and we can't use it the analyse anything because you say so.

    Just like the english language. And maths. And the C# programming language. And the justice system. And capitalism. And the metric system of measurement.

    You're coming dangerously close to activating my insult processing unit.

    ReplyDelete
  56. ...can't use it to analyse...

    Freaking typos.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Mrfreethinker,

    Evidence for the resurrection of some Palestinian rabbi is NOT what you initially claimed to possess. (His followers' claims that he was a demigod do not count as evidence of anything.)

    What you promised was evidence for the existence of a deity.

    If you're just going to keep disappointing me then maybe we should call the whole thing off. (pouts)

    ReplyDelete
  58. @ Freethinker

    You wrote "Because any proof any Christian would have to offer would have to appeal to logic ( which you guys think is a subjective convention)"

    Objective does NOT mean relative. Read the definitions again. Something can be objective & NOT be absolute. That's the sort of conclusions that reason can give us, objective conclusions which are neither relative nor absolute.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @ Freethinker

    You also ask how induction can be justified. Quite easily really - probabilism.

    Let me put it this way. If I could prove that it was 99.99999% probable that behind a particular door there was a tiger you would be a fool to say 'You haven't proved it absolutely so I'm going to open the door anyway.'

    That's probabilism. That which is probably true should be treated as true until shown otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @ freethinker
    you also wrote "Neither. The Laws of logic are a reflection of god's unchanging nature. Rationality is based on god's nature." Sorry that doesn't work. If logic comes from God's very nature then it MUST be exactly like Him.

    But then since the principles of logic have developed over time then God must be developing over time.

    Also since logic does not give us absolute knowledge but merely increases our probability of having acquired objective knowledge then God has no absolute knowledge either.

    You sure you want to go down this road?

    In reply please give arguments evidence. DO NOT argue by assertion. In other words don't just say this is so then move on to something else.

    ReplyDelete
  61. @ Freethinker

    One more little point.

    Basically what you are saying is 'we know God exists because it says so in the Bible & we know that the bile is correct because it was guided by God.

    That is one HUGE circular argument you've got going there.
    Now follow this carefully:
    1) Circular arguments are logical fallacies.
    2) A logical fallacy in an argument renders it worthless.
    3) According to you God gave us logic.
    Conclusion: God is declaring you argument worthless.

    ReplyDelete
  62. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  63. MrFreeThinker,

    Could you direct me to more material on this? I'm genuinely interested

    Yep, you should find some discussion about this paradoxes stuff in some work by Bertrand Russell. If I remember correctly.

    Quasar,

    Excellently stated!

    Then:
    You're coming dangerously close to activating my insult processing unit.

    They activated mine long ago.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  64. MrFreethinker,

    "Maragon and Quasar claimed they (logic and mathematical concepts) were dependent on human mind. So that was what I was addressing."

    If logic and mathematics are independent of humans please account for the fact that they have had to change and evolve for thousands of years via the work of thousands of brilliant human minds.

    If such 'laws' were absolute, we would expect to see humans using them in their current form since the dawn of man.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Chris,

    Yep, I like your probabilism thingie to justify induction. However, I have to insist that induction is not circular in and of itself.

    For a circle to be a fallacy, it has to be a true circle. We know that the future has been like the past in the past. This is sound. It is not a contentious statement. Thus, we can conclude that the future will be like the past because the premise is not contentious. We can all agree on the premise. It looks like a circle, but it is not a circle. (Whew I hope I was not too convoluted.)

    The problem of circularity as a fallacy happens when a premise is contentious and it is the same contentious thingie as the conclusion (or leads to it by circling).

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Quasar,

    At the thread in the F.A.C.T.S. blog, MrFreeThinker tells you that if logic changes in the 22nd century then you would be wrong, and we would have to revisit all the arguments.

    Apparently MrFreeThinker thinks, quite freely, that logic changing invalidates all the progress (like Newton's physics versus Einstein plus Quantum mechanics). Again the black and white mentality. This is one cornerstone of their arguing technique. Along with changing semantics in the middle of the conversation to win the argument, or to irritate, rather than try and be reasonable. I would insist that, if being a Christian means being that intellectually dishonest, I rather stay far far away.

    Quite a ugly construct.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Oh, and I insist that Hume was an asshole that was taken, and still is taken, much more seriously than he deserved (deserves).

    ReplyDelete
  68. MFT,
    " Don't let me hear any of you asking any Christians for "proof"."

    You will rarely see a skeptic ask for proof. You will never see a scientist ask for proof.

    It is the evidence we want to see. Evidence. Get it?

    ReplyDelete
  69. GE...

    The black and white mentality is exactly right.

    TAG and Presupps in general have this excruciatingly annoying habit of pretending that there are only ever two choices in this argument:

    Absolute Yes.................Absolute No

    They of course ignore all the gradient possibilities(of shades of grey) in between the two.

    Presupp is the philosophical equivalent of:

    "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no."

    It's forcing you to give an incorrect answer by ignoring all the other possibilities - including the one where you've never beaten your wife.

    ReplyDelete
  70. //What you promised was evidence for the existence of a deity.//
    Think of this- logically if Jesus was resurrected , the most parsimonious explaination is his own divinity. So by providing evidence his resurrection I provide evidencethat he is divine.

    ReplyDelete
  71. "Think of this- logically if Jesus was resurrected , the most parsimonious explaination is his own divinity. So by providing evidence his resurrection I provide evidencethat he is divine."

    But you haven't provided evidence that he resurrected. And no one has ever been able to.

    The most likely and simple explanation is that it's a made up folk tale.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Maragon,

    Presupp is the philosophical equivalent of:

    "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no."


    Yep, you are right, lots of charged questions. And they will not allow you to "discharge them."

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  73. mrfreethinker said...

    In case you guys didn't get it Mike was saying that all proofs appeal to logic and such. Without god there would be no objective logic and thus it would be impossible to prove anything. So by reductio ad absurdum god exists. (or the debate is pointless)

    I will ask again (third time now), even if I give you this, how is this proof that the God of the Bible exists? Does this not work for Zeus, Allah, or Odin?

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html

    ReplyDelete
  74. @ Chris
    //Something can be objective & NOT be absolute.//
    I agree. But Maragon and whateverman think logic doesn't objectively exist.
    //probabilism//
    But by using probabilism you are assuming the factors that were used to calculate probability will have not changed from the present to the past. You're appealing to induction to prove induction.
    //But then since the principles of logic have developed over time then God must be developing over time. //
    The principles have changed? Was there a time when a statement and its negation was not true? Will they change in the future and make your argument illogical?

    //If logic and mathematics are independent of humans please account for the fact that they have had to change and evolve for thousands of years via the work of thousands of brilliant human minds.//
    Maragon, if you insist they changed then you accept there was a point in time where a statement and its negation were true and 2 +2 did not equal 4. Could you point me to this specific point in time?
    //If such 'laws' were absolute, we would expect to see humans using them in their current form since the dawn of man. //
    or perhaps humans gain a better understanding of these laws over time?
    @GE
    //like Newton's physics versus Einstein plus Quantum mechanics//
    Newton's and quantum pysics each have their particular range of application. Does logic have a particular range of application? If so how do you know? Could this range apply and not apply at the same time?
    @ Maragon
    //But you haven't provided evidence that he resurrected. And no one has ever been able to.//
    So I suppose that really long essay appeal to the consensus of reasearchers and using historical criteria just went right over your head , eh?
    @ Ge
    //Oh, and I insist that Hume was an asshole that was taken, and still is taken, much more seriously than he deserved (deserves). //
    Hume rules!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  75. @ Freethinker

    You wrote "In case you guys didn't get it Mike was saying that all proofs appeal to logic and such. Without god there would be no objective logic and thus it would be impossible to prove anything."

    Just saying Goddidit doesn't prove a thing! If it does then I say that your God wouldn't exist without the flying spagetti monster so logic really depends on him & not god at all.

    Hey this just declaring it's true 'cause I say it is garbage is kinda cool. :D

    ReplyDelete
  76. Chris,

    Pointing out the obvious will just get your post ignored. Notice I have said the same basic thing 3 times now, with no answer.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @ freethinker

    First maragon & GE wrote no such thing. They wrote that logic is a mental concept. It is get over it. If it isn't show me where a physical logic can be found.

    2) Probabilism is NOT induction. And since I've already shown how it can justify induction that answers your question.
    You then ask can it's conclusions be changed in the future. Of course since all conclusions reached by reason are tentative & NOT absolute.

    Example Newton's physics. It had to be modified when Einstein came along. Did that mean Newton was totally wrong? No! Merely that physics had to be modified.

    Nexy you wrote "Maragon, if you insist they [math & logic] changed then you accept there was a point in time where a statement and its negation were true and 2 +2 did not equal 4."

    You're not serious are you? Change does not mean EVERYTHING altered or nothing did. I really shouldn't have to explain this to an eight year old let alone an adult. Good lord.

    Then you wrote "or perhaps humans gain a better understanding of these laws over time?" Semantics & irrelevant. Logic is a gift from God remember? An absolute gift which seems to need to be modified as human knowledge progresses. Okham's law prevails here - i.e. if developing human knowledge can account for reason & math [& it can] then why do weneed divine inspiration?

    Neither gives us absolute knowledge after all.

    ReplyDelete
  78. More observing:

    MrFreeThinker said so:

    The principles have changed? Was there a time when a statement and its negation was not true? Will they change in the future and make your argument illogical?

    You see? He cannot distinguish between the abstractions about that make thinking sound (logic), and the things such abstractions are trying to explain as sound or as fallacies.

    He does the same thing when he says that then there was a time when 2+2=4 was not true. Again, the reality of what this abstraction tries to convey is not affected by our abstracting it into symbols and the arithmetic procedure (another abstraction) that uses such symbols. If we made a mistake in the abstraction, then the abstraction will fail, and will have to be corrected. In other words, reality stays the same, our abstractions improve.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  79. @Beamstalk
    I wasn't going to dignify that post with an answer but
    - Thor and odin and zeus are finite beings that began to exist at a point in time. The laws of logic preceded the existence of thor and Odin. You're also going to need a god with an unchanging nature to ground logic too.
    But are you admitting there is a god , you just don't know who it is?

    ReplyDelete
  80. What's even scarier? It's fun.

    I've long suspected him of simply harassing people for his own enjoyment, rather than trying to discuss/argue/debate. The smileys and one-liners seem to confirm this...

    Dan seems to have jumped on that bandwagon as well...

    ReplyDelete
  81. Chris,

    Your post was beautiful.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  82. any proof any Christian would have to offer would have to appeal to logic ( which you guys think is a subjective convention)

    As this was your implied assertio, please demonstrate that "subjectivity" is the same as "lacking utility".

    ReplyDelete
  83. - Thor and odin and zeus are finite beings that began to exist at a point in time. The laws of logic preceded the existence of thor and Odin. You're also going to need a god with an unchanging nature to ground logic too.
    But are you admitting there is a god , you just don't know who it is?


    I never mentioned Thor, but you didn't address Allah. According to the old legends they are infinite. So how do you prove that your God is infinite and they are not?

    And yes I said if I give that your argument is correct, all you are proving is that there is a god, not which god. That doesn't mean I think your argument is correct.

    Did you look at my link? It answers everything you are asking also.

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html

    ReplyDelete
  84. @ freethinker

    You wrote " Thor and odin and zeus are finite beings that began to exist at a point in time." Irrelevant. They existed before humanit & it is the existence of logic in humans we're discussing right?

    You then wrote "The laws of logic preceded the existence of thor and Odin." No such thing as laws of logic' so no they didn't! And just because you say it doesn't make it so.

    Then you wrote "You're also going to need a god with an unchanging nature to ground logic too."

    Point 1) No you're not just one that uses logic.
    Point 2) Your God has a changing natue as well.

    2nd part of Euthyphro
    When God sees that some acts are highly beneficial and others highly harmful, is or is he not obliged to legislate for the former and against the latter?
    If He is God is not free & if he isn't we're back to God being arbitrary again.

    You also mght like to consider this: Christians cannot justify the use of induction without begging the question.
    How can he be sure that God won't change his mind about Uniformity of Nature? You might cite God's unchanging nature as a guarantee that He won't change His mind.
    But what grounds does the you have to conclude that God's nature is in fact unchanging?, and that it will continue to be so? Whether you gained knowledge of God's unchanging nature through direct revelation or through scripture, the only way you can say anything about God's nature in the future is to use induction. Appealing to God to solve the problem of induction merely postpones the point at which induction has to be invoked to justify itself–thereby begging the question.

    In other words you're in the same boat with the rest o us free. Now cut the crap m'kay?

    ReplyDelete
  85. @ everyone

    Jut so you know the last lot of arguments were not mine. They belong to a philosopher ho tackled these questions.

    The ones beforethat were from my own wee little brain so thanks for the compliment.

    ReplyDelete
  86. MFT wrote: Think of this- logically if Jesus was resurrected , the most parsimonious explaination is his own divinity. So by providing evidence his resurrection I provide evidencethat he is divine.

    Jesus was resurrected. OK, for the purposes of this discussion, it's accepted by way of assumption.

    explaination is his own divinity An explanation is not evidence. It's also not necessarily logical or acceptable. It's common knowledge that people attribute divinity to purely natural phenomena; tsunamis (wrath of a deity), stars in the sky (angels), dinosaur bones (deity fooling us into think the earth is more than 6000 years old), etc etc. It's so prevalent throughout our history that we should BY DEFAULT be skeptical of contemporary claims to the same effect.

    The resurrection may simply have been misunderstood. It's one thing to assume it, it's a very different thing to attribute a cause for it.

    IOW: you provide faith as evidence, which it's not.

    ---

    Incidentally, if you merely wanted to provide evidence of a deity's existence, all you had to write (logically) was "The Bible". It most certainly constitutes evidence.

    Of course, it appears to have so little credibility that it requires blind faith to accept the evidence as valid - which is, of course, where most of the Christian Vs atheist debate resides.

    ReplyDelete
  87. @ WEM
    You quted someone writing "What's even scarier? It's fun."

    Who wrote this? Is it Free?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Chris,

    They know that their god will not change his mind because he has not changed his mind in the past. Duh!

    Funny, in a web site by one who argued with Martin, whose name I have forgotten, he says that circularity is fine with his god because it is divine circularity ... or ... something of ... the sort ... sorry, I even have tears of so much laughing!

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Divine circularity...I love it. I've got to pass that along to Fundies Say the Darndest Things. They love to mock unthinking goons like this.

    ReplyDelete
  90. @whateverman
    You admit this after many posters here couldn't provide any justification for induction (except for 1 guys who thought circular arguments were valid) or logic. Your worldview smacks of blind acceptance too.
    @ Chris
    //They wrote that logic is a mental concept.//
    and the definition of objective is not dependent on minds.
    //If it isn't show me where a physical logic can be found.//
    So only physical things exist?
    Stop question begging materialism..

    Many people don't seem to understand what they mean when they say the laws of logic change.
    Let us examine the law of non-contradiction.
    A proposition and its negation cannot be both true in the same way at the same time.
    Now some (like Maragon) say this law has changed.
    If so when did it change? When were a proposition and its negation simultaneously true in the same way?
    //They existed before humanit & it is the existence of logic in humans we're discussing right?//
    So before humans something could be a and not A. then that means a rock could be a human and not-human .
    @BS- as I pointed out- your god needs an unchanging nature.
    The god of the quran doesn't have an unchanging nature. He whimsically abrogates his old laws with his new ones (I've read the koran).
    @Chris
    That part of Euthrypo is about morality( which we aren'targuing).
    And i know god's nature is unchanging because of his promise he is unchanging. I don't see your point
    @whateverman.
    Historians look at the facts and adopt the hypothesis with the best explanatory power for those facts.
    that's how history works

    ReplyDelete
  91. GE,

    It was Van Tillian that said that.

    Van Tillians respond that, while circular logic can sometimes invalidate an argument, there is no other option in the case of ultimate presuppositions. They insist that all worldviews are essentially circular and cannot justify their foundational beliefs without relying upon their own core principles. In this view, one must distinguish between the logical fallacy of vicious (or, "small") circularity, versus the necessity for internal coherence ("large circularity"). In other words, presuppositionalists believe that the question is not, "Does my worldview's internal consistency depend on its own assumptions?" but rather, "Are my beliefs and practices consistent with my ultimate presupposition?"

    Bahnsen (1998): p. 170 n. 42.

    ReplyDelete
  92. @BS- as I pointed out- your god needs an unchanging nature.
    The god of the quran doesn't have an unchanging nature. He whimsically abrogates his old laws with his new ones (I've read the koran).


    That still doesn't answer my question. So how do you prove that your God is infinite (or has an unchanging nature now) and they are not?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Chris asked: Who wrote this? Is it Free?

    Arg, I try to attribute everything - sorry about that. It was Quasar, who was talking about using SCMike's approach to respond to SCMike.

    ReplyDelete
  94. MFT wrote: @whateverman
    You admit this after many posters here couldn't provide any justification for induction (except for 1 guys who thought circular arguments were valid) or logic. Your worldview smacks of blind acceptance too.


    First, I'd like to request that you drop this method of responding to people here :( I understand the difficulty in responding to multiple questions from multiple people, but your style here makes it very difficult to figure out who said what to whom, etc.

    If possible, please at least include the quote you're addressing. I would also suggest visible line breaks where possible. These make it much easier to continue the discussion without forcing people to reconstruct it each time.

    Now then: my world view refustes blind acceptance. It instead demands critical thinking, of which logic and reason are the primary tools.

    By explaining that L&R are human creations, and not infallible, I think I actually made a pretty good case for the fact that there's no blindness whatsoever - quite the opposite in fact.

    You appeared to ignore it, and simply turn around a criticism which has been levelled at you in the past. That's not debate - it's intellectual nihilism.

    If you disagree, please provide something which refutes my "Logic and Reason come from humanity" argument.

    Telling me I'm wrong isn't an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  95. MFT wrote: @whateverman.
    Historians look at the facts and adopt the hypothesis with the best explanatory power for those facts.
    that's how history works


    Sorry MFT, I've tried to figure out what you were responding to here, but I can't.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I can't respond properly yet because I'm at school - but I want to point out that I love that MFT keeps TELLING me what it is I believe instead of accepting what I tell him I do.

    Freethinker, you misunderstand or misrepresent my posts and arguments constantly.

    And I read your silly essay - and I explained to you several times why you EXPERT isn't as such and why he misrepresented the data. But I guess that went right over your head...

    ReplyDelete
  97. Check it out, even after being refuted for this technique:

    So before humans something could be a and not A. then that means a rock could be a human and not-human.

    Not distinguishing between reality and the abstractions that represent and try to make sense of reality. Funny, right? Or sad? I no longer know.

    Also note the tool consisting of picking one rule that would seem pretty well established, at least as presented, and assume that, thus, the whole construct called logic is absolute, universal, immaterial ... blah, blah, blah ... shit.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Oh correction:

    He knows that his god will keep his promise because it has kept his promises in the future in the past.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  99. MFT wrote: So before humans something could be a and not A. then that means a rock could be a human and not-human .


    Before humans, an electron could be a point and a wave at the same time.

    Logic is a tool made necessary by the presence of language. Nothing more, nothing less.

    ReplyDelete
  100. @ freethinker

    You can only know od is reliable & unchanging through the use of induction. But it's induction you're trying to prove.

    So big fail for you!

    And I can hardly be begging the question when I'm asserting that logic is a mental construct - therefore immaterial.

    Another BIG fail for you.

    ReplyDelete
  101. @ freethinker

    Many people don't seem to understand what they mean when they say the laws of logic change.
    Let us examine the law of non-contradiction.
    A proposition and its negation cannot be both true in the same way at the same time.
    Now some (like Maragon) say this law has changed. If so when did it change?" The moment something was seen to exist which violated it!

    //They existed before humanit & it is the existence of logic in humans we're discussing right?//
    So before humans something could be a and not A." Correct - quanta energy is both waves & particles.

    "then that means a rock could be a human and not-human." If they were both at the quanta level. Since they're not you're point is irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  102. @Chris
    "That part of Euthrypo is about morality( which we aren'targuing).
    And i know god's nature is unchanging because of his promise he is unchanging." And you know that his promises are good because? Face it Free you can't justify induction without using induction.

    Or are you saying you know the promises of God are reliable because...well you just know.

    In that case
    1) Circular argument
    2) Justify how you know that what you just know is reliable.

    sooner or later you use induction to justify it.

    Conclusion: Your argument fails.

    ReplyDelete
  103. @ Free
    You wrote "Historians look at the facts and adopt the hypothesis with the best explanatory power for those facts. That's how history works."

    Correct! They use induction. And it might also be noted that historians have come to the conclusion that the bible is NOT reliable history so why should its declarations about God be reliable?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Now that I've shown that Free's arguments are invalid...here's another assumption of presup.

    To quote from my philosopher again "Presuppositionalists think they have a firm foundation of knowledge that the rest of us lack. But here they are making a double error, because as well as mistakenly believing that the uniformity of nature needs 'accounting for' they seem to believe that the uniformity of nature is sufficient to provide a rational basis for inductive reasoning, when it isn't.
    Even in a universe with UN, inductive reasoning can never be epistemologically justified: just because the pen dropped to the floor yesterday doesn't mean that a previously unknown universal law will prevent it from falling to the ground today."

    So 2 grounds to dismiss presuppositionalism as an argument by fallacy. Many, many more to come. Sorry guys but you are dead in the water & sinking fast.

    ReplyDelete
  105. @ Free

    You wrote "You admit this after many posters here couldn't provide any justification for induction." Since I HAVE provided a basis for induction & since you have not that is one huge lie you've got going.

    Please discontinue lying or this discussion is over. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  106. @ WEM
    You wrote "Sorry MFT, I've tried to figure out what you were responding to here, but I can't."

    I think Free is getting his replies to Maragon & yourself confused.

    Maragon is questioning the historical veracity of the ressurection.

    ReplyDelete
  107. @ Oh & Free

    Since you don't like probabilism how about Beysian Confirmation Theory? Or hypothetico-deductive confirmation? Or Popper's falsificationism?

    There are a multitude of ways to deal with the problem you assert.

    Now since your whole argument [that induction has no basis without God] has been shot full of holes we must move on.

    Do you have even one more argument or is that it?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Maragon,
    You said,
    "Freethinker, you misunderstand or misrepresent my posts and arguments constantly."

    Maragon, dear, that is their stock in trade.

    ReplyDelete
  109. @Maragon
    //
    And I read your silly essay - and I explained to you several times why you EXPERT isn't as such and why he misrepresented the data. But I guess that went right over your head...//
    Maragon Gary Habermas is a credentialed scholar who has published in many academic journals.He has debated lots of atheists on the topic.
    For you to accuse him of dishonesty you have to present some darned good evidence of him being dishonest.. as of now all I've heard is some vague accusations.

    ReplyDelete
  110. @ free

    You wrote "as of now all I've heard is some vague accusations."

    You mean like the unsupported assertions you've given us?

    Maragon how could you behave in such a way. I'm sure Free will agree with me when I say that people who use unsupported assertions are doing something very wrong & should be ashamed of themselves...shouldn't they free?

    A case of sauce for the goose I think.

    I can't speak for maragon but I'll offer you a deal. You stop arguing by assertion & so will I. Deal?

    ReplyDelete
  111. I'll probaly stop posting here soon. Go read that piece by Bertrand Russell and do mv5y homework.

    @Chris.
    I know god is unchanging because he directly revealed it to me.No induction involved.
    //The moment something was seen to exist which violated it! //
    Could the law of non-contradiction have applied and not applied at this moment?..
    //And it might also be noted that historians have come to the conclusion that the bible is NOT reliable history so why should its declarations about God be reliable? //
    This was about a specific challenge I had going here
    http://facilis.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/the-counter-challenge/
    But again this is just a vague appeal to "historians". Some historians will claim the bible is very reliable.Some won't.
    //Even in a universe with UN, inductive reasoning can never be epistemologically justified: just because the pen dropped to the floor yesterday doesn't mean that a previously unknown universal law will prevent it from falling to the ground today."//
    You should read some of my posts in the other thread. I said a very similar thing. As to how UN didn't justify induction. I claimed that we could rely on induction because of god's promise.

    And chris. I don't sit here and defame the name of a credentialed scholar wothout evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  112. @ free

    You wrote "I know god is unchanging because he directly revealed it to me.No induction involved."

    My answer: And how do you know that your revelations are reliable. Sorry you've still got to use induction. You're just pushing it further back.

    Next you wrote "Could the law of non-contradiction have applied and not applied at this moment?."

    My answer: I've no idea what you're talking about. Contradictions can only apply to different concepts. So what you seem to be asking is can a concept be applied to itself & contradict itself? What the hell does that mean?

    Next you wrote "You should read some of my posts in the other thread. I said a very similar thing. As to how UN didn't justify induction. I claimed that we could rely on induction because of god's promise."

    Since you need induction to justify your claims & since I've already shown that we don't need a diety to arrive at tentative conclusions then your claims are unnecessary.

    Conclusion:
    1) You haven't shown why you don't need induction.
    2) The use of induction is justified in a number of ways.
    3) You are postulating a cause that is quite addequately handled by human sources. [see okham's razor].
    4) Since logic is modified as human knowledge increases you haven't explained why we need any human aid in this area.

    Doesn't sound like you've made any case here except that you got soundly spanked. :D Ohhh bet that hurt.

    One final note. You wrote "And chris. I don't sit here and defame the name of a credentialed scholar without evidence."

    My answer: So it's alright to defame us just not your favourite scholars? Is that what you are saying?

    & I'm a credentialed scholar. So when scmike was treating me with disrespect why didn't yo say something then?

    Or don't I count because I don't share your views?

    ReplyDelete
  113. I love it when they say such and such is a "credentialed scholar," and when you look it up they publish in christian "journals," and work in a religious "university."

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  114. @ free

    & since I've already shown how induction can be justified.
    Probabilism, Beysian Confirmation Theory, Hypothetico-Deductive Confirmation, Falsificationism.

    Your ideas are shot down in flames I'm afraid. Alas. Now let your arguments be good zombies & keep them still. But whether they move or not doesn't change the fact they are dead & gone.

    ReplyDelete
  115. MFT:

    "Maragon Gary Habermas is a credentialed scholar who has published in many academic journals.He has debated lots of atheists on the topic.
    For you to accuse him of dishonesty you have to present some darned good evidence of him being dishonest.. as of now all I've heard is some vague accusations."

    LIBERTY UNIVERSITY.
    For most people, that's all that needs to be said.

    And as I explained earlier, I couldn't find any major secular historians who agreed with ANY of your supposed points - let alone 4 of them.
    Most scholars will say that it is likely a historical Jesus existed - it was an incredibly common name(shared the the original texts in the Bible by Joseph, his father - later changed for clarity). It's also likely that a man named thusly was executed by the Romans. Once again, common name, common practice. However, that's where the majority of scholars leave it. Anything regarding the supposed resurrection, ascension, divinity, miracles and whatever else is pure heresay and cannot be considered proven historical events.

    ReplyDelete
  116. I know god is unchanging because he directly revealed it to me.No induction involved.

    Wow, someone tells me this in person, and I just walk away. Why bother?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  117. @ free

    Regarding habermas's arguments for Jesus' Ressurection here is one little critique I've found.

    "p. 57: Of your "twelve historical facts" I question 1, 5 (depending on the interpretation of "real experiences"), 6, and 10. I think that you don't adequately consider "body stolen" hypotheses, and you certainly don't give arguments against the better ones. ("Schweitzer lists no proponents of the fraud theses since the work of Reimarus in 1778," as you say in footnotes 3 and 30, is no argument.) Robert Sheaffer, in The Making of the Messiah (1991, Prometheus Books), makes the case that the early Jewish writings and the Toldoth Jeshu contain the most accurate account of Jesus' life and death--that he was executed by Jews, by being stoned and hung in a tree. (Sheaffer also appeals to Celsus, or at least what we have of Celsus.) The body was moved by a gardener (or some other person), a hubbub about a resurrection was raised, the location of the body was revealed and the body publicly displayed.

    The question "if Jesus' disciples took the body, why were they willing to die for their conviction that he had actually been raised from the dead by God?" is not relevant to this theory, in which someone else moved the body, presumably to keep the disciples from venerating it or stealing it. As for the disciples experiences, the period of time during which the body was missing could well have been the catalyst for their faith. As for why the revealing of the body didn't crush the new faith, please see Festinger's When Prophecy Fails. (I suspect we will see the surviving followers of David Koresh's Branch Davidian sect continue to preach Koresh's religion.)

    p. 58: The reference here to Mary Magdalene talking to the gardener is ironic in light of the Toldoth Jeshu (and Sheaffer's theory).

    pp. 60-61: I am glad to see you cite Zusne & Jones on collective hallucinations. Presumably this is a result of my review of J.P. Moreland's Scaling the Secular City in The Frontline, which I sent to J.P. Moreland and which also prompted Ed Babinski to bring up the subject in correspondence with Gary Habermas. Your discussion seems fair, but overlooks some significant evidence. UFO hoaxes have produced remarkable agreement among observers regarding things which the hoaxers knew were not present (see, e.g., David I. Simpson, "Controlled UFO Hoax: Some Lessons," Skeptical Inquirer vol. 4, no. 3, Spring 1980, pp. 32-39). Similar examples may be found in claims of Satanic ritual abuse, UFO abduction, and faith healing. Basically, I think you are overlooking various social effects independent of "hallucination." (You do realize, don't you, that the Satanic ritual abuse claims got their start from people who made them up, like Mike Warnke and "Lauren Stratford"? Cornerstone magazine exposed both of these liars.) Also see Lawrence Wright, "Remembering Satan," New Yorker May 17, 1993 and May 24, 1993.

    pp. 61-62: As for legends, please note that 1 Corinthians 15 has no evidence whatsoever for the crucifixion of Jesus, only for his death. Sheaffer's Making of the Messiah gives reasons why early Christianity had strong motivation to change the mode of his death from stoning by the Jews to crucifixion by the Romans.

    p. 64: Reference is made here to "the fulfilling of Old Testament predictions." I know of no clear, specific, remarkable prediction of the coming Messiah in the Hebrew scriptures which has been demonstrated to have been fulfilled by the historical Jesus. I do know of numerous verses which are taken out of context as proof texts. (Enclosed is a copy of my Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah, which criticizes alleged messianic prophecy fulfillment.)

    ReplyDelete
  118. @ G.E

    You quoted Free & wrote "I know god is unchanging because he directly revealed it to me."

    There's a lovely line in the film adaptation of 'Inherit the Wind'.

    It goes "God talks to you? God spoke to you personally? Well ladies & gentlemen meet the prophet from Nebraska. We will make a new testament. The book of Free. We'll slip you in seemlessly between Numbers & Deuteronomy."

    Such a declaraion raises the question "is this the way of things? God tells Free & Free tells the world & therefore to be against Free is to be against God?"

    Scarey. :(

    ReplyDelete
  119. @ Maragon

    I actually was taught by a devout Christian at university. He declared once "would you like to hear the gospel story according to historians? It goes like this. A man named Yeshua was born. He lived, gained a following, was killed & died. Everything else is a statement of faith not facts!"

    I think Asimov put it beautifully "If you don't believe no facts are possible & if you do believe no facts are necessary."

    ReplyDelete
  120. "I know god is unchanging because he directly revealed it to me.No induction involved."

    The best part about this is that if "freethinker" made this statement about anything but 'god' - he'd be committed.

    Christianity - an endless source of undiagnosed mental disorders; Since 50CE.

    ReplyDelete
  121. @ Maragon

    There is a nasty joke that goes
    "what do you call someone who claims that God talks to them?
    Answer: Either lunatic or preident of the United States."

    I'm so ashamed of myself now. Bad chris. Baaad! :D

    ReplyDelete
  122. @Maragon

    //LIBERTY UNIVERSITY.
    For most people, that's all that needs to be said.//
    Maragon. I don't know what you're thinking but just because a certain university is Christian or rejects a certain scientific theory it doesn't make every professor there dishonest

    //And as I explained earlier, I couldn't find any major secular historians who agreed with ANY of your supposed points - let alone 4 of them.//
    Maragon, the last time we spoke I asked for-
    1) the names of these scholars
    2)which of the facts they disagree with
    You haven't provided any of the above
    but I will give you a couple to check out if you like.
    Bart Ehrman, Pinchas Lapide,
    Robert Funk,John Dominic Crossan
    None are traditional Christians.
    Have fun.

    @Chris
    //Probabilism, Beysian Confirmation Theory, Hypothetico-Deductive Confirmation, Falsificationism.//
    Can you go into more detail on this please. And do not assume the same way we calculate probabilities now will be true for the future.

    @Chris.
    instead of copy/paste stufffrom the web why don't you actually write a response to the facts. I can evaluate your theory on grounds of parsimony and explanatory power.

    ReplyDelete
  123. MFT:

    "Maragon, the last time we spoke I asked for-
    1) the names of these scholars
    2)which of the facts they disagree with
    You haven't provided any of the above
    but I will give you a couple to check out if you like.
    Bart Ehrman, Pinchas Lapide,
    Robert Funk,John Dominic Crossan
    None are traditional Christians.
    Have fun."

    And the first time we spoke about it, I asked for a complete list of secular scholars you claimed agreed with you.
    You have yet to provide such list.

    ReplyDelete
  124. @Maragon
    Habermas compiled over 1400 sources. it would be impossible for me to list all here, much less sort through all and see which are Christian scholars.
    Imagine if a creationist claimed the consensus of biologists didn't aaccept evolution, provided no names to support my position. When you do cite a survey of peer reviewed sources the creationist
    1)accuses the credentialed scientist who did the survey of being dishonest (with no evidence)
    2)demanded you provide a complete list
    What would you think?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Mrfreethinker,

    You said: Think of this- logically if Jesus was resurrected , the most parsimonious explaination is his own divinity. So by providing evidence his resurrection I provide evidencethat he is divine.

    By this argument, then, Lazarus was also divine. No?

    Nice using the word parsimonious. It makes you sound perspicacious. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  126. Think of this- logically if Jesus was resurrected , the most parsimonious explaination is his own divinity. So by providing evidence his resurrection I provide evidence that he is divine.

    What about Denis (or Dionysius)? Dude had his head chopped off and he continued to preach as recorded in "Legenda Aurea" (sometimes called the "Legenda Sanctorum"). And all the zombies in Mathew 27?

    ReplyDelete
  127. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  128. @ Free

    You wrote "Think of this- logically if Jesus was resurrected , the most parsimonious explaination is his own divinity. So by providing evidence his resurrection I provide evidence that he is divine."

    Sorry but as Adam points out this argument would apply to all dieties which, it is claimed, died & rose again. Quite simply death & resurrection dieties are a dime a dozen. Face it eaither they are all correct or all wrong. Your choice. To give a partial list [courtesy of wikipedia]:

    Aboriginal mythology
    Julunggul
    Wawalag

    Akkadian mythology
    Tammuz
    Ishtar

    Aztec mythology
    Quetzalcoatl
    Xipe Totec

    Canaanite mythology
    Baal

    Celtic mythology
    Cernunnos

    Dacian mythology
    Zalmoxis

    Egyptian mythology
    Horus
    Osiris
    Amun
    Amun-Min (Amen-Min)

    Etruscan mythology
    Atunis

    Greek mythology
    Adonis
    Cronus
    Cybele
    Dionysus
    Orpheus
    Persephone

    Hindu mythology
    Trimurti
    Brahma
    Vishnu
    Siva

    Japanese mythology
    Izanagi
    Khoikhoi mythology
    Heitsi

    Native American mythology
    Kaknu

    Norse mythology
    Odin
    Balder
    Gullveig

    Phrygian mythology
    Attis

    Religion in ancient Rome
    Mithras
    Bacchus
    Proserpina

    Slavic mythology
    Veles
    Jarilo

    Sumerian mythology
    Damuzi

    ReplyDelete
  129. @ free

    Next you write "@ Instead of copy/paste stufffrom the web why don't you actually write a response to the facts." Since what I copied & pasted dealt with the facts why don't you respond to them?

    & then you write "I can evaluate your theory on grounds of parsimony and explanatory power."

    Oh? Since when are you an expert in history? You'd have to be in order to exaine the evidence. When did you get your degree? From what university?

    What's that? You don't have a degree you say? Then how are you to evaluate the evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  130. Another point free

    You wrote that you were going to evaluate the evidence on the grounds of parsimony.

    Could you provide a definition of that please. What's that? You don't know? Then how are you going to use it to evaluate anything?

    ReplyDelete
  131. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  132. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  133. @ free

    Let e give you a teaser.

    If you could save a soul - but to do it you'd have to lie - would you tell the lie?

    Here's a second. If tomorrow you found absolutely 100% proof that Jesus wasn't God. In fact he never lived at all. And additionally you also knew that such information would destroy ever christians faith in the entire world. What would you do? Would you:
    A) Reveal the information?
    B) Hide the information?
    Which?

    ReplyDelete
  134. @ Free

    These are a few of the gentlemen you assert agree with the historical resurrection of Jesus. At least according to your interpretation of Habermas.

    John Dominic Crosson: "Crossan maintains the Gospels were never intended to be taken literally by their authors." [So no historical ressurection then].

    Bart Ehrman "His research proposes that the Biblical text was unintentionally altered by scribes and intentionally altered for a variety of reasons." [so no historical resurrection then either].

    Pinchas Lapide "Pinchas Lapide (November 28, 1922 — October 23, 1997) was a Jewish theologian" [In case you didn't get the memo Jewish theologian means didn't believe in the resurrection]. :)

    Robert W. Funk (July 18, 1926-September 3, 2005), an American biblical scholar, was co-founder of the controversial Jesus Seminar and the nonprofit Westar Institute in Santa Rosa, California."

    So what does the Jesus Seminar teach you ask?

    To quote wikipedia "The seminar's reconstruction of the historical Jesus portrays him as an itinerant Hellenistic Jewish sage who did not die as a substitute for sinners nor rise from the dead, but preached a "social gospel" in startling parables and aphorisms"
    [So no historical resurrection there either].

    I was harsh before in accusing you of lying before but I would assert that you have been lied to.

    Use that principle of parsimony and ask yourself what is the most likely explanation. I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself.

    Once again my apologies from before. I was too harsh.

    ReplyDelete
  135. @ free

    Ahh the night of the living debunked arguments eh?

    Ok. Let's deal with your questions & statements.

    You also ask "Can you go into more detail on this please."
    Well since you asked I'll give you my site. Only fair since you expected Maragon to go to yours.
    This one is for Beysian

    Confirmation Theory:
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/carnap.htm

    Falsificationism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

    Probabilism: I've already defined this.

    Hypothetico-Deductive Confirmation
    is used in this manner: We arrive at a hypothesis [which may be based upon induction]. Next consequences are deduced which are tested against experiece. If the hypothesis is falsified, then we learn from the experience & attempt to produce a better one. If not then we try other tests.

    Glad to see that accept the idea that you also must account for induction through induction. Or use one of these as the basis. Either way no need for divine inspiration.

    ReplyDelete
  136. @ G.E

    I believe what you are refering to is known as Russell's paradox.

    In other words Free what Russell showed with his paradox is that any self-referencing formal system will inevitably lead to paradox.
    The Russell paradox has nothing to do with reason's relationship with reality. Though it does show thatreason can NEVER provide absolute soluions. So no divine inspirer needed.

    Example of Russell's paradox:
    If I declare this sentence is in English & it is false. thn what is it? If it is true that it is in English then it is false but if it is false then it is true.

    That's what you are trying to do, according to Russell, when you demand a sytem justify itself. It just causes a paradox.

    Thanks G.E.
    I'd forgotten all about Russell's paradox.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Did anyone bother to read my original post ? The purpose was to give NON-CHRISTIAN scholars who were skeptical of the New testament buit still agreed with most of the 5 facts.

    ReplyDelete
  138. "Did anyone bother to read my original post ? The purpose was to give NON-CHRISTIAN scholars who were skeptical of the New testament buit still agreed with most of the 5 facts."

    We read it, we see no evidence for it.

    I've explained to you several times what the majority of scholars believe - a guy named Jesus probably lived and was crucified by the Romans. The end.

    ReplyDelete
  139. @Bob
    The difference is that Jesus claimed divinity while Lazarus and the zombies did not.

    @Adam
    If you are willing to make a long essay using historical criteria and the facts accepted by the majority of scholars concerning Dionysus(like I did here http://facilis.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/7/) I would be willing to listen.
    @chris
    I suggest you watch this debate where Habermas talks about other resurrection stories (the other guy got pwned)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40aRXR8cBxQ
    and give sources for these claims.
    However if you are willing to do the reasearch and present the facts accepted by scholars today who study these things, I would be willing to read it.
    //Since when are you an expert in history? You'd have to be in order to exaine the evidence.//
    no i don't. All I need is a good critical thinking brain and a knowlege of how history works.

    //Could you provide a definition of [parsimony] please.//
    Wikipedia has a good entry on it

    1) //Many of those on the list are theologians NOT historians//
    All of the people have published notable works in historical Jesus studies and/or have relevant credentials.
    2) //Some of those on the list do NOT believe in a physical resurrction.//
    I agree- but they accept most of the 5 facts

    ReplyDelete
  140. @Maragon
    //I've explained to you several times what the majority of scholars believe//
    Ok so what credentialed scholars did you cite who did surveys as to what the majority of scholars accept. Oh wait none!!!
    That's right.

    I cite scholars who actually compiled over 1400 historical publications on the subject and you cite none.
    Well I guess it is up to the unbiased observer to see who is full of crap. the one who did the reasearch or the one who makes blind assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  141. "Well I guess it is up to the unbiased observer to see who is full of crap. the one who did the reasearch or the one who makes blind assertions."

    We all know your 'historian' is full of crap. No need to point it out, dear.

    ReplyDelete
  142. instead of copy/paste stufffrom the web why don't you actually write a response to the facts. I can evaluate your theory on grounds of parsimony and explanatory power.

    "Explanatory power" has very little substance when it accepts statements like "I know it to be true" as peer to factual information.

    Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  143. @mr. freethinker:

    You said Think of this- logically if Jesus was resurrected , the most parsimonious explaination is his own divinity. So by providing evidence his resurrection I provide evidencethat he is divine.

    So which is it? Either way I think your argument loses...lots of people over history have claimed divinity. And Lazarus was resurrected.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Hey Chris,

    Not a problem. I read most of philosophical stuff by myself, and during times when I had much more free time.

    I suspect you did that in school? (your knowledge looks more organized)

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  145. MFT,

    Did anyone bother to read my original post ? The purpose was to give NON-CHRISTIAN scholars who were skeptical of the New testament buit still agreed with most of the 5 facts.

    You mean the "challenge"? Yep, I went there (you asked if I wanted to discuss something, blah, blah, blah). After looking at it, reading the stuff, then finding out about your "credentialed scholar." I found the whole thing to be exactly like the "reasons to believe." Nothing but fallacies. Charged questions (charged questions are those that make you accept something you do not agree on in the first place, like the "have you stopped beating your wife?"), biased arguments, "citations" of works published in biased places. Claims about surveys that either did not happen, or incorporate imaginary scholar names for citations about "secular" historians, if not false citations.

    So, I decided I do not want to discuss anything.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  146. @ Free

    Why do you sem so impressed by a citation of 1400 scholars many of whom actually disagree with habermas. But Habermas says that they do agree with him.

    So Habermas is either a liar or incompetant.

    As to the length of he list of scholars you seem overly impressed with that. Don't be. Few of them were historians so few knew anything about analyzing a historical text.

    Finally if you'd like to give me a little time I could come up with a list of a couple of hundred scholars who doubt the resurrection. And ALL my scholars would be ones who actually doubted. Not just names thrown in to make a longer list. If you'd like a longer list of names though I would have to ask for pay. You game?

    ReplyDelete
  147. @ Free

    You wrote "I suggest you watch this debate where Habermas talks about other resurrection stories"

    Answer: Not possible for me. Sorry. I'm on dialup & a video of any length takes several hours to download.

    You next wrote "However if you are willing to do the reasearch and present the facts accepted by scholars today who study these things, I would be willing to read it."

    Answer: ok. Try:
    *Ian Jones 'Joshua, the Man They Called Jesus'
    or
    * This from the Brown daily herald that that Habermas has NO FACTS to back his case. NONE!

    "The world's most famous historical figure may also be one of its most elusive. The subject of millions of books, movies and even bumper
    stickers, Jesus Christ has been an international celebrity for almost
    2,000 years. But when archaeologists try to uncover even a single
    artifact regarding Jesus' life, they can find NOTHING. "It's amazing how
    something you CAN'T prove scientifically can be so powerful," said
    Adjunct Associate Professor of Judaic Studies Katharina Galor."

    So explain to me Free how can we 'know' that Jesus rose from the dead when there is NO scientific evidence that He even existed?

    In case you'd like to read the report it's here:
    http://media. www.browndailyhe rald.com/ media/storage/ paper472/ news/2008/ 09/25/Features/ Did-Jesus. Walk.On.Water. Prof.Cant. Find.Footprints- 3452061.shtml

    Sorry but Habermas is either a liar or incompetant. If you choose to believe him just because Habermas agrees with you that is your choice. But as for me I choose truth not lies - even comforting ones.

    ReplyDelete
  148. @ Free

    You also might try going to these groups and ask your questions concerning the lack of evidence for Jesus. But be warned many scholars on these groups are even more long winded than me & THAT'S saying something. :D

    ancient_discoveries@yahoogroups.com

    allthingshistory@yahoogroups.com

    AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com Biblical_Artifacts_and_Events@yahoogroups.com

    biblicalhistoryarchaeology@yahoogroups.com

    ReplyDelete
  149. @ Free

    I also think I see where the problems are coming from.

    First Pinciple of scepticism 'Limit your belief to that which can be proved'

    Second Principle 'The greater the claim the greated the amount of evidence required.'

    Example of 2nd Principle: I tell you don't touch the table it's wet. Since wet tables are an everyday minor event the level of evidence required for my claim is very low - a touch by your hand or just believing my word perhaps.
    But
    Let's say I tell you 'Last night bunny aliens from the planet bunnytopia took me away in their flying saucer to their home planet where they taught me the secrets of the universe. Then they erased all that knowledge again & brought me back.'
    I think you'd require a wee bit more than just my word.

    But hold on what if, because I'm very convincing, I could get several people to believe me. [your 1400 scholars for example]. Is that enough proof? Nope! What difference does it make how many people believe me? How is that evidence of my story?

    So what counts as evidence you ask? Depending on what we are talking about evidence is usually something we can study & about which we can make claims that are falsifiable.

    In other words my bunny story is unfalsifiable so unprovable. But if I claim the bunnies swore to me they would return at 9 pm tonight now my story is falsifiable. See the difference?

    The claims of Jesus' resurrection are just that - claims - nothing more. They are non-falsifiable. They are matters of faith not history.

    ReplyDelete
  150. @GE
    As I am the writer of the challenge and the other essay supporting that I would very much like to know if I am in error. Instead of throwing around vague accusations (like some other atheists here who refused to acept the challenge) could you please point out what fallacies I used and where exactly I used them.
    Could you say what facts you agree with and disagree with and on what grounds?

    //Claims about surveys that either did not happen, or incorporate imaginary scholar names for citations about "secular" historians, if not false citations.//
    Could you please document instances of this happening? thank you.
    (I've noticed while I have had no problem providing evidence for my assertions about the historical Jesus with documentation and the work of scholars with PhD's -all the atheists here seem to be hard up to scholarship-wise to support their assertions)

    (Note I'm actually not a creationist)
    [parody/]
    Evolution is a hoax. I went down to that 26 major evidences for Macro-evolution at Talkorigins and it is full of fallacies ( I will not mention where the fallacies are). Who cares if those "facts" were supported by credentialed biologists?
    Claims about surveys among bilogists that either did not happen, or incorporate imaginary scientist names for citations about "unbiased" biologists, if not false citations.(I refuse to provide evidence for these assertions)
    So, I decided I do not want to discuss anything.
    [/parody]

    ReplyDelete
  151. @Chris
    //Why do you sem so impressed by a citation of 1400 scholars many of whom actually disagree with habermas. But Habermas says that they do agree with him.//
    Neither I nor Habermas made this claim. We claimed there were 5 minimal facts most of them agreed upon.

    //Finally if you'd like to give me a little time I could come up with a list of a couple of hundred scholars who doubt the resurrection.//
    That is not relevant. what would be much more useful is something where these historians say which of these 5 facts they agree with and on what grounds.

    //Sorry but Habermas is either a liar or incompetant. If you choose to believe him just because Habermas agrees with you that is your choice. But as for me I choose truth not lies - even comforting ones. //
    I believe Habermas because he is a scholar with credentials who supports his work with documentation and strong arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  152. @ free

    I've already given you evidence for why Habermas is a liar or incompetant.

    Example 1: He lists as scholars supporting his position scholars who write that Jesus NEVER rose.
    So whichis it? Do they agree with Habermas [in which case why do they write the opposite] or do they disagree [in which case why does Habermas have them listed]?

    Example 2: Archaeological evidence is totally absent for Jesus. Now since we cannot prove He even exist how can anyone prove that Jesus rose?

    Get the idea now? Habermas is either incmpetant or a liar.

    However I think you raise valid objections. Now if you'd like to give a site where his challenge is written out I'd be more than happy to rip him a new arsehole for you. :D

    ReplyDelete
  153. @ free

    Ok. Give me the 5 points & I'll check them out. Fair?

    I am even prepared to say I will suspend judgement until I've done my research. How fair is that? :D

    ReplyDelete
  154. @ Free

    You also assert that Habermas wrote that these five points are agreed upon by all these historians. Have you ever asked any of them? Pick one of the ones I listed below & check out whether Habermas lied or not.

    Remember a claim [and that is all Habermas is making at this point] is NOT evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  155. @Chris
    I would recommend you checkout some of Bart Ehrman's debates if you didn't have dial-up where he admits most of the facts. Pinchas Lapide also has a book on the resurrection of Jesus and his views on it.

    ReplyDelete
  156. @ Free

    I prefer to go to the original source rather than reports of others. Less confusion that way.

    I'm going to go through an interview that habermas himself gave. It is found here:
    http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/islam/1Habermas(6)-Historic%20Facts%20that%20Show%20Jesus%20Died.pdf

    And I will refute it poin by point. Rather than one long post I'll break mine up into several smaller posts. Ready? Let's begin.

    ReplyDelete
  157. 1st point of habermas "If the person is hanging low on the cross for any amount of time—let’s say, 30 minutes—he’s dead."

    Incorrect! People were known to survive a crucifixion. It happened rarely but it did happen. One is account is mentioned by Tacitus. Poor guy had to be nursed back to health. Not pretty.

    Perhaps Habermas isn't a careful enough scholar to have checked this fact. It's not a good start though.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Next quote from Habermas
    "we’re told that they stabbed Jesus in the chest and blood and water came out. Someone says, “Well, that’s in the Gospel of John and we’re not going to give that to you.”

    [I thought he said all these historians agreed these were undisputed? That historians agreed with all these?]

    It's beginning to sound a lot like bullshit [sung to 'it's beginning to sound a lot like christmas'] :D

    ReplyDelete
  159. Next quote given after pointing out that Jesus was stabbed:
    "So reason number one: If you’re low on the cross, you’re dead. You’ve asphyxiated."

    [Being stabbed does NOT make you low on the cross. So point two is irrelevant].

    Not looking good.

    ReplyDelete
  160. next quote
    "Third "So these are some of the reasons to believe that crucifixion is lethal. Asphyxiation, heart wound, and if it only went through the chest you would have the sucking chest."

    [these are treating the texts like they are a blow by blow historical account. Not even the most amateur student would make such a stupid assumption. Most ancient texts were NOT by eyewitnesses & even the ones that were were content to give the gist of what happened. They NEVER gave blow by blow descriptions].

    e.g. The works of tacitus, seutonius, herodotus, thucydides, etc. Habermas is beginning to look like a lousy historian.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Next habermas argues against the swoon theory.

    [I agree it is untenable. But no one has put this forward for a very long time. Time to stop beating a dead horse.]

    ReplyDelete
  162. Next quote
    "Jesus died on the cross, as, by the way, even the Talmud tells us."

    [First other Jewish sources say he was hung. So Jewish sources are NOT in agreement! Second the talmud accouns were written over 200 years after the events. Hardly contemporary therefore useless to decide what happened.]

    ReplyDelete
  163. Next quote
    "The critic responds, “I don’t like the Gospels.”

    [straw man fallacy. Critics contend that the gospels are NOT history. No reputable historian dismisses the gospels merely because they don't like them. e.g. I don't like Mein Kampf but if I want to understand Hitler's mental state it is an invaluable resource. Stupid but invaluable.]

    ReplyDelete
  164. Next quote talking about the tradions associated with the burial place of Jesus:
    "What you need, number two, is evidence that He was buried somewhere else. And that’s the key—evidence that He was buried somewhere else. There are no takers really. Why? There’s no early evidence that He was buried anywhere else."

    [Habermas has the burden of proof the wrong way round. Those who make the positive assertion e.g. Jesus was buried here - have the burden of proof. NOT the sceptics].

    ReplyDelete
  165. Next quote
    "A lot of folks have made the point that Joseph and Nicodemus, their names are difficult to explain in those burial stories unless they were the guys that did the burial. Why bring these names out of obscurity if they weren’t really the people? It makes sense of somebody who believes they are telling the right story."

    [Habermas is joking right? Because if he isn't this is the lousiest argument I've ever heard. The silmarillion takes a lot of names from the medieval past. All that means is that it is fiction with a dash of history. Nothing more. Good lord this guy is an awful historian.]

    ReplyDelete
  166. Next

    Habermas points out that there is an assertion that Jesus was buried found in 1 Cor.

    [So what? so what? A claim is not evidence! It's just a claim. Nothing more! Habermas also never deals with where this writer, Habermas agrees it wasn't Paul, got his information from. If it was just from someone else then 1 Cor is mere hearsay].

    ReplyDelete
  167. Next quote
    "another good [Another good argument? They've all been lousy so far] argument is Acts 13.29"
    [Now notice exactly how he phrases this next bit] "Because SOME critical scholars are willing to grant that, as I said earlier, Acts 13 contains another of those little creedal passages."

    [SOME critical scholars? I thought there was consensus? Only some now?]

    ReplyDelete
  168. Next quote
    "and, lastly, Jerusalem was the last place you want to proclaim the burial if He has not been buried there. Because that’s the only place in the world it could be refuted. They can grab the body and say, “No. He’s not here, He’s over here."

    [Is he serious? The Gospels were written between 60 to 100 years after Jesus' death. How recognisable would Jesus' corpse be by then? Now you may reply that they were proclaiming the physical resurrection of Jesus just days after the event. But there is NO evidence for that. Just documents that were written decades later. See the problem?]

    And this is is Habermas' evidence for the LEAST controversial part of the Jesus story. The resurrection is far, far more controversial.

    In the end I'd give Habermas a big fail & send him back to studying historical texts with the first year students. Obviously he hasn't mastered the discipline yet.

    ReplyDelete
  169. I have a feeling [correct me if I'm wrong Free] that Habermas' evidence for the resurrection is merely to ask how we account for the accounts of the resurrection given in the Gospels.

    He would then lay out a few possibilities. For example the swoon theory [untenable], the followers took the body, the authorities took the body, Jesus was raised fom the dead.

    This is a really old argument. It was around when I was a fundie. And it's complete rubbish. If you'd like me to pont out the fallacy with this portion of the argument I'd only be too happy to oblige. Let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  170. As I said MrFreeThinker, I am not interested, just as you are not interested in the talkorigins stuff.

    I did, however, mention the main fallacy, didn't I? Charged questions. You want us to just accept that these 5 things did happen, then go from that to demonstrate that "the best explanation is that the resurrection is true" is wrong.

    I knew you wrote it. It has your punctuation all over it.

    Now, the reason I am not interested. I have done a lot of that, explaining and showing that these people do lots of biased and charged arguments. Just to find no Christian will even try to understand what I am saying. Exactly like you ignored the "charged questions" fallacy that I clearly told you about. Also because Chris is debating the very authenticity of your charged question. Why should I do that too?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  171. MrFreeThinker,

    In your "parody" you added:

    Who cares if those "facts" were supported by credentialed biologists?

    When did I say: Who cares if those facts were supported by credentialed "historians"? I said that your credentialed historian is not such thing. Maragon and Chris have told you why. I did so too. I would not call anybody who works for a biased Christian "university," who publishes in biased Christian "journals." A credentialed anything. Well, maybe a credentialed liar for Jesus.

    A bit of a while ago I asked historians at the University of "Not a Chance that there is any god," and all of these credentialed historians agreed that there was no Jesus, nothing even similar, no apostles, and so on. They even made a survey among thousands of other credentialed PhDs and they mostly agreed with them. They have thousands of publications in the Journal of the Non-Existence of Deities, the Journal of the Impossibility of the Christian God, and many other highly respected journals.

    Now my friend. How does that sound to you? Would you need to do lots of research before dismissing their arguments, or would their presentation suffice for you to think they might be "a bit" biased and willing to make any claims, with or without evidences?

    And that is just the start. I have found the same thing about "credentialed" anythings defending the Christian faith. Then, if you still go a read what they write, they show unreliability from the get go. Just look at Chris's point by point comments.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  172. @Chris
    I'm writing a response to Maragon right now so I won't get to respond to you.

    Why instead of beating Habermas don't you just make a decent essay explaining what facts you agree and disagree with and on what grounds?

    P.s.That account you are talking about of a guy surviving crucifixion is Josephus not Tacitus.If you read the whole account he was taken down EARLY and given the best medical treatment in Rome. And oftentimes "hung" is used to describe a person hanging FROM a CROSS (Paul even says Jesus was hung in Galatians 3:13).
    And in history the skeptic has the burden ofproof. We usually take documents at facevalue unless we have goodreason to think the writer was lying.
    Imagine I were to write a fake account for the news that everyone could read. In this fake piece I had the names of the Governor and several local congressmen involved in a conspiracy. you see the problem there. I could get in trouble. these people will make statements discrediting my story. Most likely if I make a fake story I would use fake names- so noone could discredit me or at least use the names of people who are not well known. It is the same with the gospels, Nicodemus and Joe of Arimethea were important people. when you make up a story you do not include important people in.
    The gospels were not written 60 years after and you would do well to look at the 1 corinthians 15 creed (dated 2-5 years after the crucifixion).

    ReplyDelete
  173. @ Free

    You demand evidence yet when someone provides it you dismiss i & scream "Not enough give me more".

    How much more Free? How much will be enough for you? I've already given facts which show the poor research done by Habermas.
    So I'm going to respond to each of your points & show that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. ready? Let's begin

    ReplyDelete
  174. Quote from Free "If you read the whole account [of someone surviving a crucifixion] he was taken down EARLY and given the best medical treatment in Rome."

    My answer:Irrelevant! Habermas wrote "If the person is hanging low on the cross for any amount of time—let’s say, 30 minutes—he’s dead."

    Inother words the crucifixion victim would have to be taken down in those in those 30 minutes or he's dead.

    While Seneca, who actally watched a crucifixion, disagrees with Habermas. He wrote "Those
    condemned to such a death lose their life drop by drop." [from Epistulae 101,14].

    So Habermas got it wrong didn't he Free? Habermas didn't know what he was talking about did he?

    ReplyDelete
  175. You then wrote "

    You then write "And oftentimes "hung" is used to describe a person hanging FROM a CROSS (Paul even says Jesus was hung in Galatians 3:13)."

    My answer: Absolutely correct. But it's not the case here.
    "Robert Sheaffer, in The Making of the Messiah (1991, Prometheus Books), makes the case that the early Jewish writings and the Toldoth Jeshu contain the most accurate account of Jesus' life and death--that he was executed by Jews, by being stoned and hung in a tree." Ooops. Look like Habermas strikes out again. Doesn't it Free?

    ReplyDelete
  176. Then you wrote "And in history the skeptic has the burden of proof."

    My answer: Totally wrong! A positive statement always has the burden of proof.
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

    What Habermas used is known as the Appeal to ignorance fallacy. Oooh But since the presence of a logical fallacy makes an argument worthless & habermas' argumens contain logical fallacies then they are worthless. That's another strike out isn't it Free?

    ReplyDelete
  177. Then you write "We usually take documents at facevalue unless we have good reason to think the writer was lying."

    Wrong again! Documents could be lying, or mistaken or just plain insufficiently accurate.

    We ALWAYS have to decide whether they are reliable or not.
    Read about the process of evaluating a source here:
    http://www.educationforum.co.uk/Page4.htm

    You won't find ONE WORD about accepting the source until shown to be false. It must have hurt to pull that large a piece of bullshit from your arse. Take painkillers next time.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Then you give a strange example which destroys what you've just written.
    "Imagine I were to write a fake account for the news that everyone could read. In this fake piece I had the names of the Governor and several local congressmen involved in a conspiracy. you see the problem there. I could get in trouble."

    My answer: Indeed you could get into trouble. Thank goodness that since you are making a positive claim the burden of proof is on you. The one accused of corruption doesn't have to prove a thing.

    But you just wrote that we should take these accusations as true until proven false. Now you're arguing against your own previous point. This s very confusing Free.

    ReplyDelete
  179. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Finally you wrote "The gospels were not written 60 years after and you would do well to look at the 1 corinthians 15 creed (dated 2-5 years after the crucifixion)."

    STOP PULLING MAKE BELIEVE FACTS OUT OF YOUR ARSE!

    To quote the Oxford Bible Companion.
    Matthew ["It is commonly held that the gospel of Matthew was written about 85 - 90 C.E"]

    Mark ["The Gospel of Mark was written between 65 - 75 CE"]

    Luke ["It is widely held that the Lukan gospel was composed around 80-90 C.E"]

    John ["An upper limit of 150 C.E or a little earlier. Though the Rylands Papyrus [which contains a few verses of John] may be dated to 135 C.E"]

    Corinthians ["1st & 2nd Cor consist of several shorter letters & notes written to the church at Corinth in the early 50s C.E"]

    What was that you wrote again Free?
    Oh yes...it went "The gospels were not written 60 years after and you would do well to look at the 1 corinthians 15 creed (dated 2-5 years after the crucifixion)."

    You didn't really know what the hell you were talking about did you Free?

    ReplyDelete
  181. Chris, that is not how history works. The burden is on the skeptic to demonstrate that
    1)the source is unreliable
    2)the source was likely to be lying
    We take sources at face value unless we can make a case otherwise

    //My answer: Indeed you could get into trouble. //
    exactly. In the same way- if Mark was just making up the story of Joseph and nicodemus he would get in trouble. Why then would you risk it? The most likely option would be he was just relating it as it happened.
    And as you claims t Habermas being dishonest
    //Example 1: He lists as scholars supporting his position scholars who write that Jesus NEVER rose.
    So whichis it? Do they agree with Habermas [in which case why do they write the opposite] or do they disagree [in which case why does Habermas have them listed]?//
    Habermas never claimed they believed Jesus rose.he claimed most agreed with the minimal facts

    //Example 2: Archaeological evidence is totally absent for Jesus. Now since we cannot prove He even exist how can anyone prove that Jesus rose?//
    Archeological evidence is absent for Justus of Tiberias, Hillel, Gamaliel, Hori...etc (all were Jews contemporary with Jesus).
    Look up a fallacy called argument from silence.

    ReplyDelete
  182. You then write "It is the same with the gospels, Nicodemus and Joe of Arimethea were important people. when you make up a story you do not include important people in."

    That is very, very odd. First Joseph & Nicodemus are first names. I could write the most totally false things I could imagine & if I gave their first names NO ONE would know who the hell I was talking about.

    Second your reply has NOTHING to do with the argument of Habermas. Try arguing what Habermas actually says m'kay.

    Habermas wrote "A lot of folks have made the point that Joseph and Nicodemus, their names are difficult to explain in those burial stories unless they were the guys that did the burial. Why bring these names out of OBSCURITY if they weren’t really the people"

    In other words those names wouldn't have been used because the were OBSCURE. NOTHING to do with them being powerful people!

    And I have already given a reason as to why obscure names could have been used - historical fiction needs local colour. Habermas never even considers this as a possibility. That shows gullibility at best.

    ReplyDelete
  183. @ Free

    I'm sorry but you are totally wrong.

    Didn't even look at the site I provided about burden of proof did you?

    No I thought not.

    Here's an example about why the burden of proof rests on the maker of a positive claim.

    Let's say I assert that flying raindeer exist [positive claim].

    You assert thery don't [negative claim].

    To prove your point you take a raindeer up to the top of a tower & throw them off - splat!

    My response? I declare "I didn't say all raindeers fly."

    You take every single raindeer up to the top of the building & push them off - splat!

    My response? "The raindeer chose not to fly."

    You CANNOT prove a negative!

    But you can prove a positive. I can just point to one flying raindeer.

    Conclusion: The burden of proof is ALWAYS on those making the positive claim.

    ReplyDelete
  184. @ Free

    You then write "Habermas never claimed they believed Jesus rose.he claimed most agreed with the minimal facts."

    Except when Habermas didn't. For example he spoke about consensus with at least these points. Then he spoke of most scholars agreeing - then only some scholars.

    SO WHICH IS IT?

    ReplyDelete
  185. @ Free

    Then you wrote "Archeological evidence is absent for Justus of Tiberias, Hillel, Gamaliel, Hori...etc (all were Jews contemporary with Jesus)."

    Totally agree since the quote I gave actually stated that although there was no archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus he DID exist.

    Do you actually read anything I post? Or do you just react to them?

    For the record - I am asserting that Jesus existed but there is no archaeological evidence for him. That being so his resurrection is can only ever be a matter of faith & NOT history.

    Not an argument from silence at all. Is it Free?

    ReplyDelete
  186. In the end Free I have shown that Habermas uses

    A) logical fallacies,

    B) deliberately misrepresents his opponents arguments [straw man & his ever shrinking lot of scholarly consensus],

    C) Gives farcical arguments [like the nicodemus one],

    D) Treats his texts as though they were blow by blow historical accounts [a mistake a 1st year history student wouldn't make],

    E) argues that Jesus' opponents could identify his corpse even when the earliest account was written at least 20+ years after the event.

    Ask yourself this Free. If I or anyone else who was a non-christian made lame arguments like this wouldn't you immediately jump on us & point them out? Of course you would. And quite rightly too.

    So why are you treating Habermas any different?

    Why does he get to make so many foul mistakes when if we make a minor one we get jumped on?

    I will leave that question to you and you conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  187. But so it will be very, very clear what I am stating.

    I assert that Jesus [more properly yeshua] ministered and died in the Roman controlled area known as Judaea.

    He was most probably captured by the Romans & falsely charged with rebellion.

    He was most probably crucified & was probably taken to be buried.

    And that's it. That is all that can be shown historically. Full stop.

    Everything after that is a matter of faith NOT historical evidence. As I pointed out since Jesus left no archaeological evidence his resurrection CANNOT suddenly turn into history.

    Feel free to assert that the resurrection is true. That is your faith & you are welcome to it. But it is NOT a matter of history.

    ReplyDelete
  188. As I stated before

    If you believe you don't feel that evidence is necessary

    And if you don't believe you feel that no evidence is possible.

    Since you've remained silent about my offer to refute Habermas' argumnts for the resurrection I'll take it that you aren't interested.

    So on that note fare ye well.

    ReplyDelete
  189. @chris
    I don't have time to go over everything you said but you don't have a very full understanding of Habermas' work. I'd recommend picking up one of his books.Many of the things here are just misunderstandings of his arguements. A lot of the assertions you make are covered there. He discusses the creed found in 1 Corinthians 15 and its dating.Another decent book on understanding the resurrection is the one by N.T. Wright.
    and as to the burden of proof it goes like this.
    Historian: Suetonious said Ceasar crossed the Rubicon.
    Skeptic: But he could have been lying
    Historian: Unless you can provide a good reason Suetonius was lying or is unreliable, we accept his claim at face value.
    That's the way it works in history.
    Ps ( I don't think you should appeal to Schaeffer-doesn't look like he has any credentials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sheaffer)

    ReplyDelete
  190. @ free

    Why are you contradicting yourself?

    You wrote "I don't think you should appeal to Schaeffer-doesn't look like he has any credentials"

    Then check out his evidence & prove it wrong. Oh and by the way if you had bothered to ask shaeffer is quoted by a credentialed historian. Ooops guess you feel kinda foolish.

    Need I point out that according to YOU a text [in this case shaeffer's] must be correct until proven false.

    Or does that only apply when it's a christian text?

    Next you write "Historian: Suetonious said Ceasar crossed the Rubicon.
    Skeptic: But he could have been lying
    Historian: Unless you can provide a good reason Suetonius was lying or is unreliable, we accept his claim at face value."

    BULLSHIT! Where do you get this garbage from? For one thing the date of the crossing of the rubicon would have been gleaned fromCaesar's diaries. Those were propaganda tools and ARE treated as suspect by historians. Bet you feel foolish.

    I've already given you a cite for scepticism toward texts. Would you like me to produce others? How many more would convince you? 1? 5? 10? 20? 50? 100? None ever?

    Cite one non-fundie historian who argues what you've claimed. Just one or admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    And need I point out that since YOU are an uncredentialed person, then, acording to you, you don't get a say.

    Or does that apply only when it's used against non-christians?

    Remember when you wrote "I don't think you should appeal to Schaeffer-doesn't look like he has any credentials"?

    So basically you've totally contradicted yourself.

    Provided no evidence for your claim - this is how historians operate, really truely.

    Made up stuff just to support your viewpoint.

    You've made claims about things with no supporting evidence.

    Even when you've been offered evidence that you are wrong you've ignored it.

    Can you see, just slightly, why people might dismiss fundies as just a bunch of arrogant liars?

    I think you and your conscience have a LOT to talk over. What you have to remember is 'telling lies for Jesus' is still lying.

    With that fare thee well. I shall trouble you nay more.

    ReplyDelete
  191. @Chris you completely miss the point. I was just using an analogy for a well known historical event.

    Anyway, you said Habermas was wrong-- in essence because Schaeffer said so.
    But Habermas has PhD in history and Schaeffer has none so i would tend to side with the one with credentials? Wouldn't you.
    ?
    If some amateur journalist said something about evolution that contradicted the statements of someone with PhD's in biochemistry, who would you side with? that's all I was saying.

    ReplyDelete
  192. @ everyone who is not free

    Free seems t think that its enough for someone to say "This is the truth" & it must be so.

    Is that the way a reputable historian operates?

    Not according to wikipedia, education forums in the UK & Cornell University.

    So what do they say is the criteria for evaluating the texts & their trustworthyness?

    The following criteria for source evaluation is taken from the American Library Association (1994) and Engeldinger (1988):

    How was the source located?

    What type of source is it?

    Who is the author and what are the qualifications of the author in regard to the topic that is discussed?

    When was the information published?

    In which country was it published?

    What is the reputation of the publisher?

    Does the source show a particular cultural or political bias?

    For literary sources we might add complementing criteria:

    Does the source contain a bibliography?

    Has the material been reviewed by a group of peers, or has it been edited?

    How does the article/book compare with similar articles/books?

    This is the method used according to:
    American Library Association (1994) Evaluating Information: A Basic Checklist. Brochure. American Library Association
    Engeldinger, Eugene A. (1988) Bibliographic Instruction and Critical Thinking: The Contribution of the Annotated Bibliography. Research Quarterly, Vol. 28, Winter, p. 195-202
    Engeldinger, Eugene A. (1998) Technology Infrastructure and Information Literacy. Library Philosophy and Practice Vol. 1, No. 1

    If you wish to read the web sites for yourself they are:

    Cornell University Library - Critically Analyzing Information Sources

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_evaluation

    http://www.educationforum.co.uk/Page4.htm

    I leave it up to the readers to decide which they think is the sorrect method.

    1)Test the sources

    2) Take them on face value & trust them until proven otherwise. [Even though it is impossible to prove a negative].

    ReplyDelete
  193. @ Free

    You completely missed MY point.

    You wrote "Anyway, you said Habermas was wrong-- in essence because Schaeffer said so."

    Incorrect I wrote that Habermas was wrong because the evidence - in this case the Toldoth Jeshu - said so.

    If the Toldoth Jeshu says something else prove it.

    Then you wrote "But Habermas has PhD in history..."

    Incorrect. Habermas has a PhD in Theology NOT history. Check out the wikipedia article on him:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Habermas

    According to wikipedia "Gary Robert Habermas (born in 1950 in Michigan) is an Evangelical Christian, American Christian apologist, theologian, and philosopher of religion."

    No History qualifications though he does have qualifications in the History of Philosophy. Maybe that's where you're getting confused.

    ReplyDelete
  194. The biggest problem is not just that historians do not take "documents" face value, no sir, the biggest problem is that it does not even make sense to do just that.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.