Home

I think he gave a very good answer for why the Caananites were driven out of the land. It was not genocide at all. I suggest Paul Copan’s book “Is God A Moral Monster” for further research. Bill is still unmatched in logical arguments to this day; though I have not heard a good counter-argument from him for the “Evil God” scenario. I actually think Edward Feser has a great response to that one. It’s over at his blog. 

Yeah, I wonder if Craig was simply unprepared for the Evil God scenario. I think he could have done a much better job of at least pointing out some basic problems with it, as I’m sure he’s at least passingly familiar with the material Feser goes into at length (and very well, as you observe).

Paul Manata recently wrote a somewhat rambling but nonetheless very penetrating critique of the Evil God challenge from another angle—check it out if you’re interested.

I think Dawkins was right not to debate him. Craig should debate other philosophers. Though I imagine that the main problem would be that most non-religious philosophers are not that interested in religion/theology – maybe I’m wrong, but then why don’t other philosophers seem to debate him?

Peter, I think it makes sense for Craig to debate anyone who challenges the truth claims of Christianity in an influential way. However, if you refer to the Reasoanble Faith website’s debate listing, you’ll see that the majority of Craig’s debates have been with philosophers—at least the ones listed there. The list isn’t fully up to date; it looks like there might be some debates missing, and certainly the recent debate with Stephen Law hasn’t been added yet (note that Law is a philosopher). But A C Grayling, Quentin Smith, Ingmar Persson, Edwin Curley, Massimo Pigliucci, Douglas M. Jesseph—all philosophers!

The continued refusal of Dawkins to debate Craig is now becoming so ridiculous it’s almost pathetic. As is his attempts to play down Craig’s credentials. It’s compelling that Harris and Hitchens dont have any problem recalling who Craig is, or what his credentials are. Maybe its the interviews with Harris and Hitchens describing Craig as the one apologist who “puts the fear of God in them” or  the one opponent that makes other atheists phone them up before a debate to plead with them “not to stuff this one up” that informs Dawkins position? 
I can’t recall exactly which organisation it was who wrote an open letter in the UK press acuusing Dawkins of cowardice for not debating Craig; was it the UK Humanist Org?? but when even the atheist movement can see through this guy for what he really is it tells us everything.  I think more people are realising that he is nothing more than a very articulate writer with a psuedo-intellectual, anti-religious obsession. Its rapidly becoming an exercise in self-parody.

Marc, I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Dawkins has given his reasons for not debating Craig, and trumped-up as they are, he still has to stick to them or he’ll lose face.

Of course, he’s well within his rights to not debate him in a public forum. That isn’t something he has much skill at, I think, so it’s in his best interest to avoid it. If he did debate him like that, he’d lose face because he’d come off badly, and he’d lose face again for going back on his previous comments.

Mind you, a lot of people would think more highly of him if he would interact with Craig in some way. I think he really does need interact with the arguments that have been put forward. He can’t continue to pretend that Christianity is irrational and easily defeated when Craig (and many others) have roundly panned his book and showed how inadequate it is. He either needs to advance his arguments, or retract them.

That’s the intellectually honest thing to do. And I’m certain that a great many people would think very well of him if he said, “Look, my arguments were inadequate, I was wrong.”

So the basic question is: Is Dawkins intellectually honest? And I think the clear answer to that question is: No, he is not.

D Bnonn,

Ah, thanks for that! I didn’t know he’d debated all of those philosophers.

I can understand your point, that if Dawkins is going to start making claims about god and religion that it seems reasonable to expect him to be prepared to defend and debate his claims. But on the other hand I think it’s up to religious people to come up with evidence for their beliefs in the first place. And therein lies the heart of the debate, I think – it is about epistemology more than anything else. Dawkins is going to ignore the kinds of evidence that Craig is going to present and vice versa.

Personally I lie towards Dawkins end of the scale. I think that the kind of epistemology that results from accepting a religion is quite innefectual – just about anything could be true – which is why what naturally falls out of this issue is the question, which god or religion should Dawkins debate?

Perhaps you could also answer a question which I discovered while on holiday when having a discussion with a stranger, perhaps best described as an emergent christian. We weren’t discussing the origin of the universe, it was something else I can’t remember, and he pointed out that the creation stories of genesis use the word ‘bara’ for create, which doesn’t actually mean create, it means something akin to ‘fill’. Shortly thereafter I realized that this probably has ramification for the Kalam argument since the bible would not, then, refer to the universe being ‘created’.
Your take?

I think you are completely correct. It comes down to the fundamental question of intellectual and academic integrity, which I would humbly propose Dawkins is clearly lacking.  There is no question that Dawkins now enjoys a degree of fame, recognition and financial reward that would be unthinkable had he not launched the anti-religious tirade and pursued the militant rhetoric he now employs. To that end, it is basically repugnant that he is willing to reap the rewards of a ‘million copies+’ bestseller like The God Delusion but , as you mention, either advance the arguement or retract it as inadequate. 
What astounds me is the scale of the flaws in some of the deductive logic and philosophical reasoning present in his writing. I have copies of several of his works as I like to engage with the secular criticisms of my own worldview, but it is frequently challenging to attribute any degree of credibility to his critique as it is often so illogical that it is pointless to consider his conclusion as his initial premise was so ridiculous.
Again, I don’t have a copy in front of me, but in McGraths book “The Dawkins Delusion”, McGrath interviews an Oxford Prof’ – the name evades me without the book, but he is actually a close working colleague of Dawkins- who stresses that he is also a firm atheist who believes the notion of personal God to be ridiculous, however he pleads with McGrath to stress that Dawkins in no way represents the intelligent, rational atheistic worldview, quite the opposite in fact.  When both Christians and Atheists recognise just how much of a pantomine performer Dawkins actually is, it’s quite something to behold that the man manages to convince and fool so many people.

sorry, just to clarify. my lasy comment was replying to D Bnonn.

If Dawkins does not wish to appear in a public debate with Craig, fine; but he should at least write a book responding to criticisms of his arguments raised by Craig and many others.

But I don’t think we should under-value the voice of the marketplace. The fact that Dawkins has sold so many copies of his book shows that there is a significant number of people in society who share his views, quite aside from the evaluation of his arguments (which from my epistemology I think are very strong).

The christian worldview might just claim that there is this interest in Dawkins’ books because people are, at base, wicked. But then that’s a double standard when they’d claim that a christian message is popular in the marketplace by its own virtue.

If you know anything about WLC’s conflicting claims on evolution and ID, you wouldn;t have said that I don;t think.  William Lane Craig recently even lied about William Dembski, saying that he is an evolutionist (during one of his podcasts “The Triumph of Michal Behe” — see it on youtube).  I’m afraid Craig is just as guilty of being intellectually dishonest at Dawkins.  

Citation needed.

Muhteo. William Lane Craig actually did not say that William Dembski is an evolutionist. See appoximately 4:15 of the video you cited as a source. There William Lane Craig says that William Dembski is a prominent Intelligent Design advocate who thinks that you can believe in evolution yet also have an argument for an intelligent designer of the universe. Before you sling around accusations of being intellectually dishonest, I would suggest you check the mirror first. Your facts are plain wrong.

Peterpieman, 

What epistemology is it that, once adopeted, makes Dawkin’s arguments ‘very strong’? Or what epistemological principle is there to do the same? 

And I’m sure Dawkin’s The God Delusion is popular for many reasons. But whether they are popular or not has no bearing on the cogency of the arguments therein. So I don’t know why you think we should not under-value the marketplace’s voice.

The video refered to is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8tZxcGJyhM

I found this video to be supremely boring. It was basically your average WLC debate without an opponent. I was hoping that he would interact with Dawkins’ book more than just saying “But Dawkins didn’t refute the following arguments: [insert Craig's standard opening statement here]“.

But there were respondants to his lecture, which Craig then responded to extemporaneously. And there was a q&a session afterwards. So I don’t think it warrants the ‘supremely’ of your opinion ‘superemely boring’, even if you were the type that finds the whole subject tedium. Besides, its definitly not the most dull lecture I’ve ever sat through. Not even the most boring lecture from WIlliam Lane Craig. 

You say he didn’t interact with Dawkins’ book more, but what he did do was what he set out to do. That is, show that the refutations of the arguments for God’s existence that Dawkins has offered in The God Delusion are woefull indeed, and that the ‘central argument’ of Dawkins book for the belief that God does not exist is fatally flawed in many different respects. That seems to be engagement enough for 40 minutes or so. Afterall, if the central argument is defective, then its a fair bet that the rest of the book is similarly rotten. 

Hi Stuart,

All I mean about epistemology is certain demands about what constitutes evidence. Many of my reasons for disbelieving in god or religion are along very similar lines as Dawkins’ reasons, so as I read his book I think he’s right on the money. I don’t consider personal experience or ancient text or mere logical argument a very high standard of evidence. That is why there are such contradicting beliefs between people who use these evidences in my opinion.

I disagree with you about popularity. You probably think that you are the arbiter of what is cogent. You aren’t, obviously. The marketplace is a far better guide.

Hi Peterpieman,

You say you don’t consider personal experience a very high standard of evidence. Thats surprising. Would you seriously consider the belief that you are you is unwarranted if you didn’t have anything else other than your personal experience?
You say you don’t consider ancient text a high standard of evidence. Well neither do I. But what if there were many ancient texts which supported the same conclusion? Multiplicity of sources is a standard criteria used to justify historical facts. What if such texts displayed other standard criteria, such as enemy attestation, early attestation, embarrassment, etc.?
You say you don’t consider logical argument a very high standard of evidence. Thats very strange, since logical arguments are usually considered to be the ultimate in proofs. True premises + valid logic = sound conclusions. Ok, so many people who purport to use logical argumentation arrive at different conclusions. But would you prefer illogical arguments? (Well… obviously since you think along similar lines as Dawkins. Frankly, he’s a worthless logician.)
You say don’t consider any of these a high standard of evidence, but what if you had all three of them?
On popularity, its not just my opinion. Appeals to popularity have long been considered, as well as widely regarded as fallacious when arguing for the truth or falsehood of some belief. The technical name is argumentum ad populum. To find out more about this type of fallacy I suggest you go here http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/04/fallacy-friday-ad-populum-fallacy-appeals-to-popularity.html or listen to the podcast here http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/fallacy-friday/fallacy-friday-ep12.mp3

I know this is a really simple way of looking at it, but I just thought I’d address the issue of whether or not the popularity of a book means that the ideas within it hold any truth value. Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, Twilight. Hugely popular books, though I’m sure most everyone would agree they’re far from reality. The reason these books are popular is because they are entertaining. Now I’m not saying that people read Dawkin’s book for entertainment, but my point is that just because people buy the book and read it doesn’t mean they agree with the ideas within it. There are actually many people who read books by people they disagree with so that they can actually intelligibly debate their ideas rather then just say they’re wrong because they disagree with them.

Yeah, thats a good point!

And one of the reasons why appeals to popularity for the truth or falsehood of beliefs are not taken seriously.

Stuart,

I’m afraid that you don’t hold personal experience very high either, Stuart, except your own. Because you think that most of the planet is mostly wrong when it comes many things including religious beliefs. But to humour your example, the concept of “me” only has meaning if there is anything external to me. If, for example, I was the only human in the world, I might have a concept of myself as an “object” or “living being” separate from the world around me. This, one could argue, would constitute a self-concept, but it would be very limited. Our knowledge about ourselves – our concept of “me” – is afforded us exactly because there are other people around.
It seems to me that you think that your concept of “you” would look largely the same whether or not you had ever met other people. This is wrong.

Ancient texts: All I mean is that ancient texts are a pretty poor standard of evidence for universe-changing claims, like christianity being true.

Don’t get me wrong, logic is very important but, like you can’t quite bring yourself to say, people who use logic come to different conclusions. I can see that you don’t want to admit that there are logical conclusions other than christianity, but evaluating propositions is not a logical thing. It is a very human thing and we are all different and come with different perspectives.
You say Dawkins is a useless logician, but this is incorrect. His logic is not explicitly stated, for sure, but his arguments can easily be made into logical ones. And one of his most crucial axioms – if he is anything like me, and I suspect he is – would be that real phenomena are repeatable and objectively observable.

Perterpieman,

I do hold personal experience as a high standard of evidence. Personal experience in the absence of defeaters warrants belief. Other peoples different conclusions of the basis of their personal experiences, I trust, have defeaters. So different conclusions from others personal experience doesn’t at all invalidate personal experience as a high standard of evidence (or my own conclusions, for that matter).
To prove this I said, otherwise, you should never believe you were you unless a scientist could demonstrate that. And you replied “the concept of “me” only has meaning if there is anything external to me.” But this is false. If you were the only thing in existence: if there was nothing external to yourself: if all you have ever experience was your own inner dialogue, you would still know who you were referring if you said “me”. I think Descartes was, in part, right when said Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). This means at least that my personal experience of myself thinking provides really really good justification for the conclusion that I exist and that “me” therefore is not meaningless. The affirmation “I don’t exist” is, after all, self contradictory.
Re ancient texts: Christianity being true maybe a universe altering claim, but it is based on claims that are not all that extraordinary which all the standard tools and rules of historiography can in principle establish (in practice too I think). For instance, to establish that the central claim of Christianity is true (something quite extraordinary, the resurrection of Jesus), all that is required is to show that (1) there was a man who was alive, (2) that died, and (3) then was seen alive again. Nothing extraordinary about any of those. I don’t know why you should think that responsible study of historical documents cannot achieve a high standard of evidence. Is it because Christianity would then be able to be highly evidenced?
Re logic: I do think people with different conclusions try to be logical. I even think that sometimes they are being logical. Different conclusions are a result either bad logic, or the other factor needed for sound argumentation, namely TRUE PREMISES. What you accept as true or more probable than not will affect what conclusions you arrive at. So I do agree with you that many people are different and come with different perspectives. But that’s not a reason for despising logic by saying it does not give a high standard of evidence. That is reason for asking “What reasons do you have for believing your premises are true?”
Re Dawkins being a worthless logician: An axiom is not an argument, so quoting one doesn’t prove your point that he’s not a worthless logician. To do that, you would need to explicate a cogent argument of his, then demonstrate somehow that this was the normal standard of his philosophical/theological writing. What would be better is if you could show his central argument was cogent. Good luck.
Re Dawkin’s axiom “real phenomena are repeatable and objectively observable”: Isn’t an argument against God. If it’s meant to be its patently begging the question. But its not even relevant anyway because God isn’t a phenomena. Worse, the axiom doesn’t hold for historical studies, which deals mostly in one-time (non-repeatable) events of the past, which being immediately veiled by the passage of time become unobservable. So unless you’re willing to throw all historical conclusions to the dogs and adopt an anti-realism with respect to the past, I think on pain of rationality you have to believe the axiom false (or at the least in need of immediate modification).

Stuart,

Yes I see that you are in a slightly delusional world with respect to your own personal experience. What you consider defeaters is largely at the whim of your personal experience and biases. Good luck to you n convincing others to adhere to them!

“But this is false. If you were the only thing in existence…”
No, I disagree. If there was nothing outside of a person, if they were brought up from infanthood with absolutely no sensory input whatsoever, what could they think of? What inner dialogue would there be? It only makes sense to talk of “I” if “I” is in relation to something else.

Christianity and texts. I think that someone coming back to life from the dead is an extraordinary claim! If, in my life, I saw people coming back to life occasionally, or limbs growing back in front of me or people parting seas, all in the context of christianity then of course! I would be a christian. Christians have their contorted story as to why christianity is special and therefore true, so do Muslims, so do Sikhs. None have any extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claims.

“Different conclusions are a result either bad logic, or the other factor needed for sound argumentation, namely TRUE PREMISES”
I never seem to tire of how amazingly short-sighted people who say things like this are. Stand back and get some perspective. Your reasoning is not special, and other people are just as smart as you.

“What would be better is if you could show his central argument was cogent. Good luck. ‘Cos it isn’t.”
Dawkins arguments are entirely logical. They merely come from the perspective that if something is real, then it will be repeatable and observable. God fails this. It’s really not that difficult. Now of course, people will disagree with the premise that god or his effects are repeatable or observable, but this is kind of epistemology opens one up to being able to argue for any kind of crazy belief.
Throwing out all historical accounts is not needed, just sensible and consistent beliefs about how the past and present look.

Peterpieman, 

Taking out the insults of your last comment, there is very little to respond to. 

Re you believing it is unwarranted to believeing that you are you, because “me” has no meaning without personal relations external to youself: I argued that the latter is false. Imagine youself in a sensory deprivation chamber. You still have your own inner “I”. Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on that. Ok. So aside from this, you have admitted above that you would, even if you had never met any other person, have a very limited self-concept. Well – you would have this self-concept on the basis of your aquantance with yourself – i.e. personal experience. I would say that on the basis of that personal experience you achieve a high standard of evidence for that minimal self-concept of yourself. 

Re “What you consider defeaters is largely at the whim of your personal experience and biases. Good luck to you n convincing others to adhere to them!” This is just a misunderstanding. Others don’t need to be convinced of something on the basis of my personal experience. The point is I am warranted in believing in that something on the basis of my personal experience. Since the role of evidence is to warrant belief, by virtue of attaining warrant, I have attained a high standard of evidence.

Re Christianity and texts: I agree that these the resurrection is an extrodinary claim. I said as much, but added the ressurection is based on non-extrodinary claims that are verifiable historically. You havn’t responded to that. Instead you recourse to the axiom “extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” It sounds so sensible, but the fact is its demonstrably false. Extrodinary things happen everyday which we have no trouble believing. The rationale for this is found in bayesian probability formulae. Simply put, when if comes to the probability of X you have to consider not only the evidence that you do have if X, but also the probabilty of you having the evidence you do have if not-X. The latter can easily balance the equation and make the extraordinary entirely believable.

Re logic: You use ad hominem to attack my reasoning. Thats bad reasoning and poor form. Also irrelevant since I was defending logical argumentation as a method for achieving a high standard of evidence.

Re Dawkin’s central argument being entirely logical: I await your demonstration. The video above adequately demonstrates that it is not logical at all. 

Re Dawkin’s perspective that “if something is real, then it will be repeatable and observable.”: I take it thats how you express Dawkin’s scientistic epistemology. The trouble is that the epistomology is self-refuting. Ask yourself, can you repeat and observe the persepective? The other trouble is if you hold to the above principle, then throwing out all historical conclusions IS required. Also, you must adopt anti-realism with respect to the past. 

Stuart,

Hehe, that’s quite a response for “not much to respond to”.
If I went into a deprivation chamber it is too late. I have already formed a picture of “me” in my head in relation to that which is not me.

“The point is I am warranted in believing in that something on the basis of my personal experience.”
Great. So am I. See how far this gets us?

” Extrodinary things happen everyday which we have no trouble believing”
Like what?

“Re logic: You use ad hominem to attack my reasoning.”
I attack your reasoning because it is stunningly backwards: “Different conclusions are a result either bad logic, or the other factor needed for sound argumentation, namely TRUE PREMISES”
In this one sentence you have aptly displayed the core problem: You are committed to the conclusion, and the conclusion decides the premises. I could not have illustrated the problem better.

I do not hold to an anti-realism with respect to the past any more than you do Stuart. I merely interpret historical texts more consistently.

I think that the idea that if something is real then it is repeatable and objectively observable is entirely sensible. Time and time again superstition has led us and still leads some down the garden path, to conclusion which are demonstrably stupid with respect to the real world. What has led us to this point is the idiocy of ignoring the repeatable and observable. So, yes, evidence to support empiricism is very repeatable and observable. You are a case in point, Stuart.

“The point is I am warranted in believing in that something on the basis of my personal experience.”
Great. So am I. See how far this gets us?

Are you saying that you don’t think we’re warranted in believing things on the basis of personal experience? For example, do you think that you are NOT warranted in believing that you’re having an online debate with real people right now, since you have only your personal experience to warrant this belief?

I attack your reasoning because it is stunningly backwards: “Different
conclusions are a result either bad logic, or the other factor needed
for sound argumentation, namely TRUE PREMISES”

What is backwards about this? What is the alternative that you suggest? There are only three options:

1. A premise is unsound, leading to a false conclusion.
2. An inference is invalid, leading to a false conclusion.
3. The laws of logic themselves are faulty, leading to a false conclusion.

You seem to believe that [1] and [2] are not legitimate options. Are you saying [3] is your preferred choice?

I do not hold to an anti-realism with respect to the past any more than you do Stuart … I think that the idea that if something is real then it is repeatable and objectively observable is entirely sensible.

These two statements are mutually exclusive.

If something must be repeatable and objectively observable to qualify as “real”, then any event that cannot be repeated or objectively observed is not real.

Thus, the Battle of Trafalgar is not real. The Black Death is not real. Etc.

You can’t eat your cake, and still have it too.

Thanks Bnonn, 

I guess its not a surpries he’s inconsistant with the standard rules of logical argumentation. He said he was very similar to Dawkins. 

Hi guys,

I think Bnonn misunderstands my point about Stuarts comment being backward.

“”Different conclusions are a result either bad logic, or the other factor needed
for sound argumentation, namely TRUE PREMISES”"

This sounds to me as though Stuart has already decided that different conclusion are wrong to begin with, which is backwards.

If something is real then I think it should be repeatable and objectively observable. If something was real then, of course, it’s not repeatable.

I have no doubt that many christians such as yourselves have contrived your epistemologies so that christianity wins. But do you not think that muslims and jews and hindus do this? You are no different from them. I think if us three were born in Saudi Arabia, you two would be Muslims and I would still be an atheist! No, I think there is a far more sensible explanation to why the evidence for christianity is always in old books or in arguments with which you have to be already biased to agree with: it is no different to any other religion.

This sounds to me as though Stuart has already decided that different conclusion are wrong to begin with, which is backwards.

Even if Stuart’s conclusion on some given issue is wrong, it stands to reason that since truth is exclusive, only one conclusion is right. Therefore, the various other different conclusions people come to are because of unsound premises or invalid inference.

If something is real then I think it should be repeatable and objectively observable. If something was real then, of course, it’s not repeatable.

Firstly, I think we need to figure out exactly what you’re saying here. The only things that seem to fit into the category of being repeatable and observable are experiments. But it’s hard to believe you’re claiming that only experiments are real. You also need to explain what you mean by “real”; I assume you mean something like X is real if X exists. And you need to explain what you think “objectively” means. What is the distinction between something which is objectively observable, and something which is merely observable?

Secondly, your sentences here counteract each other. If something can be real without being repeatable, then repeatability is not actually a requirement of something being real at all. So apparently the only requirement is that it is “objectively observable”—whatever the qualifier means.

Thirdly, what reason do you have to believe this statement? Why should we accept it? The burden of proof is squarely on you to show that it is a reasonable way of deciding what is real and what is not. After all, as Stuart has pointed out, personal experience informs us of all manner of things that are not objectively observable or repeatable—yet we have extremely strong warrant for believing these. You need to present a stronger warrant for believing your claim above than we already have for believing things that contradict it. That seems like an insurmountable task to be honest.

I have no doubt that many christians such as yourselves have contrived your epistemologies so that christianity wins.

Quite frankly, I don’t think you even know what an epistemology really is. You seem quite unaware of some basic concepts in the field of epistemology, like warrant and the literature around that. Maybe you could describe to us what the basics of your epistemology are. How do you know things, and how do you know that you know? After all, if you’re adopting something like the scientific method as a requirement for knowledge, then you have a real problem, because the scientific method is a process of proving falsehoods, not proving truths. It’s not clear that you can know anything via the scientific method.

But do you not think that muslims and jews and hindus do this? You are no different from them

You’re trying to preempt arguments that no one is making. And you’re begging the question against the truth of Christianity.

I think if us three were born in Saudi Arabia, you two would be Muslims and I would still be an atheist!

That’s an outlandishly speculative claim. What possible evidence could you have for it?

Of course, even if it’s true, that would seem to undercut your position, rather than supporting it. Because in that case, the only obvious explanation is that Stuart and I are genetically predisposed to be religious, and you’re genetically predisposed to be non-religious. But if we only believe things on the basis of genetic predispositions, then we certainly don’t believe them on the basis of reasoning about the evidence. In which case your atheism is just as likely to be false as our religionism.

No, I think there is a far more sensible explanation to why the evidence
for christianity is always in old books or in arguments with which you
have to be already biased to agree with: it is no different to any other
religion.

You don’t seem to notice that this cuts both ways. You have to be just as biased to agree with the arguments for atheism. Whether someone finds an argument convincing depends entirely on how he views the plausibility of the premises. And that in turn is based entirely on his existing presuppositions. There is no such thing as an “objective” or unbiased position. It just makes you look silly to pretend there is—and especially to pretend that it is found in atheism.

I don’t know about you Bnonn, but the evidence for Christianity on my bookself is mostly in new books. The oldest books I have are pretty much all published after 1960. I wonder what book/s Peterpieman was referring to? I also wonder what the age of the book has to do with the strength of the evidence? I also wonder when he’s going to get around to demonstrating that the logic of Dawkins central argument is good?

Bnonn, from what I have observed your main tactic is to just throw treacle on everything, to slow everything down. Rather than take the points people are making you just insist that people expand everything in tiny detail. And I could do the same to you. I could demand that you explain situations where people have come to the same truth via different paths, throw in other jargon which is not needed, just as Dawkins doesn’t need to use explicit logic in order to make complete sense, and then throw the ‘burdon’ back at you. But I don’t need to do all this to come to sane conclusions. I simply ask myself, is it reasonable to claim that one religion in the history of man is correct, that only it’s claims to the divine are true and, oh by the way, there is no repeatable evidence at all, it is all in ancient books. The only sane answer is no. And I don’t have to understand much about epistemology to know that you pick and choose when and how to apply logic, when and how to take ancient texts as reliable, and when and how to apply modern standards of evidence.
On second thoughts though, perhaps I am being a little harsh in claiming that you’re just trying to slow things down. Maybe you are just picking apart that which is obvious because that is what you have had to do to yourself in order to make what you want to be true, ‘true’.

Stuart,

“I don’t know about you Bnonn, but the evidence for Christianity on my
bookself is mostly in new books. The oldest books I have are pretty much
all published after 1960. I wonder what book/s Peterpieman was
referring to?”

I’m sorry but this really is quite pathetic. In fact it’s just plain dishonest. A few comments ago the central doctrine of the resurrection was ‘proven’ by the gospels, and now you act as though they are unimportant. Have you fooled yourself, too?

—–

I think Dawkins is right to not debate Craig. They would just talk about different things. Dawkins would present actual evidence and implicitly assume that the past looked much like the present – the most natural assumption ever. Craig would tout his logical arguments, which are logical I’ve no doubt, but come from non-sensical or un-knowable premises, and provide absolutely no definitive evidence for god whatsoever.

Bnonn, from what I have observed your main tactic is to just throw treacle on everything, to slow everything down.

Actually what I’m doing is trying to get you to explain yourself, since I don’t understand exactly what you’re saying (and I suspect you don’t either).

You just want to push ahead, cementing one sloppy inference on top of another tendentious assumption on top of another invalid conclusion. Sorry, but that’s not my game. If you want to discuss this with me, you need to be prepared to think carefully and precisely. If you’re not up to it, you’re welcome to leave.

I simply ask myself, is it reasonable to claim that one religion in the
history of man is correct, that only it’s claims to the divine are true
and, oh by the way, there is no repeatable evidence at all, it is all in
ancient books.

If, arguendo, God exists and has revealed himself in a written revelation, then it is completely reasonable to believe that one religion in the history of man is correct (namely, the religion God revealed) and that only its claims to the divine are true (because all other contenders were not revealed by God himself), and that there is no repeatable evidence (at least in the sense of continuing revelation) because God has finished revealing it.

So your “only sane conclusion” is really just an exercise in confirmation bias. You already think it’s the only sane thing to disbelieve in God, and so you come to the conclusion that it is the only sane thing to disbelieve in God. In logic, that’s the logical fallacy called begging the question.

And I don’t have to understand much about epistemology to know that you
pick and choose when and how to apply logic, when and how to take
ancient texts as reliable, and when and how to apply modern standards of
evidence.

This is just pure ad hominem. Unless you’re going to substantiate your claim, you’re just replacing an argument with an insult. Is that the best rational, sane atheists can do?

Maybe you are just picking apart that which is obvious because that is
what you have had to do to yourself in order to make what you want to be
true, ‘true’.

It’s always fascinating to see someone who knows nothing about me impute all sorts of insidious motives and self-deception to me. But of course, if that’s how you want to play it, then obviously the only reason you’re complaining about me “slowing things down” is because you want to gloss over your errors, because that’s what you have had to do to yourself in order to make what you want to be true, true.

Dawkins would present actual evidence and implicitly assume that the
past looked much like the present – the most natural assumption ever.

Actual evidence for what? God’s non-existence? What does that look like exactly? Evidence for the non-resurrection? Where would he find that?

As for the past being like the present, well, unless you have warrant to believe that, your entire worldview falls apart. You can gloss over it by calling it “the most natural assumption ever”, but of course, that’s just a platitude. You have utterly no reason to think the past was like the present. I bet you can’t even present one reason that doesn’t beg the question.

Craig would tout his logical arguments, which are logical I’ve no
doubt, but come from non-sensical or un-knowable premises, and provide
absolutely no definitive evidence for god whatsoever.

If you’d read Dawkins’s book, you’d know that Dawkins himself uses logical argumentation to try to defeat Craig’s arguments. So, you’re already nil for one.

I can’t help noticing that you’re incredibly good at vague hand-waving and big, bold claims. But when you’re asked to actually bank the cheques that your mouth has been writing, you become strangely evasive.

You’re like a con-man. All air and bluster. No substance to back it up.

Why don’t you prove me wrong? Why don’t you show us what premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for example, are unknowable or nonsensical? You can pick another of Craig’s arguments if that’s too hard. But unless you’re actually going to show us what is so absurd about these arguments that they simply don’t qualify as evidence, even though many of the greatest minds in the world today believe they do, all you’re doing is trolling.

Peterpieman, 

I think Craig has really good reasons for believing the premises of his arguments are true. What premises are you refereing to exactly? Pick the most non-sensical and un-knowable in your estimation. Just curious. 

Did I say the resurrection was proven by the gospels? Please provide a quote of mine to that effect. I don’t think I did.

I think what I said (or should have said at least) is that the gospels comprise part of the evidence for the resurrection. On a side note, I’m inclined to think at the moment that the best evidence for the resurrection is not found in the gospels, but comes from Paul.

Anyway, now I understand what you were refering to when you wrote “the evidence for christianity is always in old books…” Well I think that’s false. The Kalam Cosmological Argument didn’t come from an old book. It came from a book written and published in 1979. That’s just one example of the project of Natural theology which is almost entirely extra-biblical – sure the seeds for it are in the bible and other ancient books (like for example the church fathers), and sure, Aquinas’ (and the likes) writings are all old now, but its not like these arguments haven’t been refurbished and updated in the contemporary intellectual scene. And its not like the historical information attained in ancient texts isn’t also conjoined with modern scholarly disciplines (such as, for instance; archeology, papirography, lower criticism, historical criticism, medical verification of descriptions therein, et al.). And its not like new arguments for the historicity of Christianity don’t occasionally appear.

You say “…or in arguments with which you have to be already biased to agree with.” Bnonn will say he’s not predisposed to believing the evidence for Christianity. For myself, I think its possible you’re right, but what else can I do? Are you sensoring me for being as critical and fair-minded as I can be, or for offering positive arguments for my position in the first place? Neither seems very fair. Especially when its apparent that you are not. You havn’t answered any of my questions, and I’m still awaiting that demonstration that Dawkins central argument in The God Delusion is cogent. I won’t beg you to explicate it for me, because I know you won’t. What you’ll probably do is just go on believing your most the sensible person here and continue insulting us in lieu of making an effort to reason well. For my part, you’re most welcome. You’ll just make yourself look bad and confirm my prediction (which I’d rather not be confirmed, btw). But Bnonn has less of a tolerance for that so don’t be surprised if one of these days your comments get deleted or aren’t published.

You may be right. I guess it was just that the mindset I had looking into this was just compltely wrong.

“So your “only sane conclusion” is really just an exercise in
confirmation bias. You already think it’s the only sane thing to
disbelieve in God, and so you come to the conclusion that it is the only
sane thing to disbelieve in God.”

It’s not the confirmation bias at all Bnonn. It’s entirely sensible to think that the past looked the same as the present. And more silly to pick out one religions version of the past. Unless a person is already indoctrinated by one religion or another, it is the default assumption.

“This is just pure ad hominem. Unless you’re going to substantiate your
claim, you’re just replacing an argument with an insult. Is that the
best rational, sane atheists can do?”

No, no, this is based on what I have heard you say. Again, I don’t have to understand much about epistemology to know that you
pick and choose when and how to apply logic, when and how to take
ancient texts as reliable, and when and how to apply modern standards of
evidence.

“Actual evidence for what? God’s non-existence? What does that look like
exactly? Evidence for the non-resurrection? Where would he find that?”

You see. This is a perfect example of you picking and choosing. How would you respond to a Mormon, say, who demanded “where would you find evidence that Joseph Smith Wasn’t given golden plates by god? What would that look like?” You use evidence for the non-existence of things all the time but when it is inconvenient you just act dumb and pretend that it’s impossible.

“You have utterly no reason to think the past was like the present. I bet you can’t even present one reason that doesn’t beg the question.”

Hehehe. Nice try. It is very well evidenced. I have observed it empirically in my lifetime, I have ‘observed’ it in modern history. The only reason that might cause me to think that the past was different, in the manner that we are talking about, is by the record of religious texts. And they all contradict each other.

Why don’t you prove me wrong? Why don’t you show us what premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for example, are unknowable or nonsensical?”The universe began to exist. This is just unknowable.

Hi there, 

I know this comment wasn’t directed towards me but this is answering one of my requests of you as well. In reference to the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, you cite premise 2. 

The universe began to exist. This is just unknowable.

With 2 philosophical proofs and 2 confirmations from science that the universe began to exist, this the standard position today. Its found in any basic science or astronomy textbook. Stephen Hawkings says (in A Brief History of Time, I believe) that almost everybody today believes that the universe began to exist. Moreover, the Bord, Guth, Vilenkin theorum (2003) is looking to be a watershed in cosmogonical speculation, with Vilenkin commenting that (from memory) “It takes an argument to convince a reasonable man. A proof to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof is now in, cosmologists can no longer hide behind a eternal universe. They have to face the problem of cosmic beginning.” Thats enough, I think, to believe that the universe began to exist. If it isn’t enough, then I’d suggest your standard of evidence are too high. But even if you don’t agree with me, and still cling to the belief that premise 2 is unknowable, I think its at least enough to consider the premise at least more probable that its contradictory, which is all it need to be for the argument to be a good one and for you to be rationally obliged to accept the conclusion.

Stuart,

” For instance, to establish that the central claim of Christianity is
true (something quite extraordinary, the resurrection of Jesus), all
that is required is to show that (1) there was a man who was alive, (2)
that died, and (3) then was seen alive again. Nothing extraordinary about any of those. I don’t know why you should
think that responsible study of historical documents cannot achieve a
high standard of evidence.”

“I don’t know about you Bnonn, but the evidence for Christianity on my
bookself is mostly in new books. The oldest books I have are pretty much
all published after 1960. I wonder what book/s Peterpieman was
referring to?”

So, do the gospels prove the central claim of Christianity or not? If they do, why do you then say that they are a minor part of the evidence. If they don’t, then what are your modern books based upon? I don’t have much respect for your ducking and weaving.

I consider that the gospels are not good evidence at all. Like other religious texts, they contain claims which are outrageously at odds with the world which we can observe for ourselves. Even if I granted that christianity is the best evidenced religion – and I’m not sure it is – it would still be silly to claim that just because it is the best evidenced that it is true and all others false. After all, one of the religions has to be the best evidenced.

I agree with you that Christianity is entirely dependent on Paul. One man. He started it, and the gospels added to it, which is why he was so ignorant of many of Jesus’ attributes in the gospels.

“Anyway, now I understand what you were refering to when you wrote “the
evidence for christianity is always in old books…” Well I think that’s
false. The Kalam Cosmological Argument didn’t come from an old book. It
came from a book written and published in 1979. ”

The Kalam cosmological argument is not about christianity.

“You say “…or in arguments with which you have to be already biased to
agree with.” Bnonn will say he’s not predisposed to believing the
evidence for Christianity. For myself, I think its possible you’re
right, but what else can I do? Are you sensoring me for being as
critical and fair-minded as I can be, or for offering positive arguments
for my position in the first place?”

I think that people generally leave religion for rational reasons, and go to it for emotional ones. I am criticizing you and Bnonn for pretending that christianity is the only rational option out there. It is most certainly not. I think that the need for religion to be true is so strong that people can spend their lives building systems to ‘prove’ it true, when in fact ultimately they are simply trying to prove it to themselves.

———

I’d say that the central argument in the God Delusion is simply “where the *^#) is the evidence for god? The claim that god exists is extraordinary, but the evidence is anything but.” I’ve put this in the form of stating that it is the most reasonable to believe that the past looked like the present: no evidence of god acting in the world, where ‘evidence’ is not a christian’s reading into things something that isn’t there, but hard evidence. Resurrections, miracles, parting seas etc.

It would not surprise me if I were blocked or my comments not allowed really. This is what sheltered thinking does. It cuts itself off from the real world and convinces itself that that was the real world’s fault.

It’s not the confirmation bias at all Bnonn. It’s entirely sensible to think that the past looked the same as the present.

You seem to think that simply repeating a previous assertion is all that’s needed to defend it. Is that because you can’t provide any actual reasons (or, dare I say it, evidence) to support it?

I don’t have to understand much about epistemology to know that you pick and choose when and how to apply logic, when and how to take ancient texts as reliable, and when and how to apply modern standards of evidence.

So rather than give a single concrete example to validate your ad hominem, you just repeat it. I’m going to call this Pieman Principle. When you’re in a corner, don’t try to prove your case. Just repeat the assertion until your opponent goes away.

How would you respond to a Mormon, say, who demanded “where would you find evidence that Joseph Smith Wasn’t given golden plates by god?

How I’d respond is irrelevant. You’re the one who claimed Dawkins would use evidence against Christianity. I’m holding you to your own claim.

You use evidence for the non-existence of things all the time but when it is inconvenient you just act dumb and pretend that it’s impossible.

I’m not pretending anything. I’m asking you to tell us what evidence of the non-existence of God looks like. After all this time you have yet to furnish us with a single concrete example that you think counts as evidence for or against your position. Making vague assertions and generalizations is not a substitute for having real reasons to believe or disbelieve something.

Hehehe. Nice try. It is very well evidenced. I have observed it empirically in my lifetime, I have ‘observed’ it in modern history.

What does that have to do with ancient history? How do you get from the inference, “The past has been like the present in my lifetime” to the conclusion “Therefore, the past has always been like the present”?

The universe began to exist. This is just unknowable.

Strangely, nearly every cosmologist and philosopher alive disagrees with you. That’s a fairly outrageous position to be in, considering you’re supposed to be a champion of evidence and reason.

Moreover, if we cannot know whether the universe began to exist or not, then presumably cosmologists are engaged in a pointless enterprise. They are trying to discover things which are, in principle, undiscoverable. Better write and tell them that you’ve canceled their credentials as scientists.

I consider that the gospels are not good evidence at all. Like other religious texts, they contain claims which are outrageously at odds with the world which we can observe for ourselves.

What you mean is, they contain miracles. And since you don’t believe in miracles, obviously the gospels are not good evidence. Historiography be damned!

Is your entire worldview based on wishful thinking, confirmation bias, and question-begging?

I agree with you that Christianity is entirely dependent on Paul. One man. He started it, and the gospels added to it, which is why he was so ignorant of many of Jesus’ attributes in the gospels.

Amusing, considering Paul came along some time after the apostles had already “started” Christianity!

I think that people generally leave religion for rational reasons, and go to it for emotional ones.

Another red herring—and a rubbish one at that. All the deconversion stories I’ve read have boiled down one of two things: either the deconvert felt taken advantage of by religious people and left religion in disgust, or he wanted to do something religion didn’t approve of (often sex-related), and so decided religion was wrong. Often these go together. In both cases, the reasons for leaving were emotional, but the deconvert presents them as rational after the fact. It’s only convincing to very credulous people who can’t read between the lines.

On the other hand, conversions to religion tend to be for reasons involving evidence. High profile examples include C S Lewis and Anthony Flew. My own conversion followed the same lines. I found the arguments for atheism incredibly weak. And the arguments for Christianity were extremely strong.

I am criticizing you and Bnonn for pretending that christianity is the only rational option out there. It is most certainly not.

I think you can be rational and not be a Christian. You can rationally believe atheism. But in the final analysis, I don’t think there is any warrant for not being a Christian. You can’t have a warranted belief in the non-existence of the Christian God, or the falsehood of the Christian scriptures. Unsurprisingly, you don’t know what rationality is.

I think that the need for religion to be true is so strong that people can spend their lives building systems to ‘prove’ it true, when in fact ultimately they are simply trying to prove it to themselves.

Since non-Christians are in rebellion against God, and know it’s only a matter of time until they are judged, the need to escape God is so strong that they spend their lives building systems to “prove” either that he doesn’t exist, or that if he does he is not a threat to them.

I’d say that the central argument in the God Delusion is simply “where the *^#) is the evidence for god?

So you didn’t read it then. Or watch the video above. Dawkins uses several arguments in the God Delusion, and they all fail miserably, as Craig demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt.

The claim that god exists is extraordinary, but the evidence is anything but.

More begging the question. There’s nothing extraordinary about the claim that God exists unless you have presupposed that he doesn’t. And if God exists, then the claim that he doesn’t is the most extraordinary claim you could come up with.

It would not surprise me if I were blocked or my comments not allowed really.

Your comments will be blocked if you continue to present assertions and insults instead of arguments and evidence.

This is what sheltered thinking does. It cuts itself off from the real world and convinces itself that that was the real world’s fault.

Considering your obvious ignorance of just about every topic we’ve discussed here; considering that Stuart and I have clearly spent a lot more time than you have investigating the evidence for and against God; and considering (if your performance is anything to go by) that we have also spent a great deal more time debating hostile interlocutors than you have, this sort of rhetoric is not only unbecoming of an adult, but positively laughable. I dunno, maybe you’re still in high school. That would explain and excuse a lot. But in the real world, this sort of psychoanalysis is just passive-aggressive bullshit. I can also say that it would not surprise me if you stopped posting here because sheltered thinking like yours cuts itself off from the real world and convinces itself that when people don’t agree with it, that’s because they’re stupid, not because it is wrong.

But if you want to just make snarky comments like a child instead of engaging in real argumentation like a man, kindly sod off and do it somewhere else.

May I offer an observation; given in absolute kindness.  While I completely understand and appreciate the frustration at processing and responding to some aspects of the reasoning underpinning the “new” athiest argumentation; particularly those aspects seemingly devoid of any logic and horribly/clumsily delivered. I am more than slightly surprised at the level of aggression and, at times, personal insults and abuse given in reply from a Christian forum.
Let me be quite succint, I share the bewilderment at some of the criticisms posted against our faith, but is the primary objective of apologetics and debate merely to win the argument at all costs? This is not my interpretation, and certainly not how we were instructed to ‘give a reason for our hope’. 
I am certain that many critics who visit this site have no interest in sophisticated, open-minded discussion, and are indeed only here to insult or abuse; does it follow that we should reply in turn?
What of the non-believer who is sceptical and laiden with doubt but reads sites such as this because he/she hasnt been completely lost, and may possibly be convinced by the arguments in favour of God given in these forums, delivered with compassion and kindness?
Is the central role of apologetics not to respectfuly reason with someone and present God as the most rational worldview possible, answering their doubts and opening their heart to allow Christ in?
I am not inferring that any individuals should tolerate abuse or prolonged debates when its becomes evident that the opponent is only interested in nonsense. But its very straight forward to acknowledge that we dont seem to be moving our debate forward, thank someone for their contribution and wish them well. You never know, the same person may come back to another discussion and start the journey towards being saved, or they may not.
I just dont see anyone being encouraged to join a forum, or return,  when they see people (however they have conducted their argument themselves) being accused of “bulls**t” and told to “sod off”. That sort of anger and resentment is not from God, and I would argue doing just as much work against him as some of the atheists posting in the forums.
I know from this site and the live events thats you guys have such an important ministry, but it is genuinely saddening to see the tone of some of the posts in these discussions. In keeping with the video being discussed by this forum; William Lane Craig made the salient point – the greatest apologetic tool we have is the life each of us chooses to lead.

Bnonn,

“It’s not the confirmation bias at all Bnonn. It’s entirely sensible to think that the past looked the same as the present.”
“You seem to think that simply repeating a previous assertion is all
that’s needed to defend it. Is that because you can’t provide any actual
reasons (or, dare I say it, evidence) to support it?”

I have already stated several reasons. But I don’t need to. It is up to you to show that the past was different, and up to you to show that your favourite version of history is true. You have quite a task considering the competition, all of whom have similarly ancient texts and claim equally astounding things. You keep trying to put it on me to show things but it is you that is claiming the past was different. Prove it! Good luck!

“I don’t have to understand much about epistemology to know that you pick
and choose when and how to apply logic, when and how to take ancient
texts as reliable, and when and how to apply modern standards of
evidence.”
“So rather than give a single concrete example to validate your ad
hominem, you just repeat it. I’m going to call this Pieman Principle.
When you’re in a corner, don’t try to prove your case. Just repeat the
assertion until your opponent goes away.”
“If, arguendo, God exists and has revealed himself in a written
revelation, then it is completely reasonable to believe that one
religion in the history of man is correct (namely, the religion God
revealed) and that only its claims to the divine are true”
Winding backwards a bit, your statement here is all backwards. You can’t start with the premise “if god exists and has…” You have to look at the evidence first. If you’re looking at ancient text, then christianity is not special. If you’ve had some revelation then christianity is not special.

“”Actual evidence for what? God’s non-existence? What does that look like
exactly? Evidence for the non-resurrection? Where would he find that?”"
“How would you respond to a Mormon, say, who demanded “where would you
find evidence that Joseph Smith Wasn’t given golden plates by god?”
“How I’d respond is irrelevant. You’re the one who claimed Dawkins would
use evidence against Christianity. I’m holding you to your own claim.”
No it is exactly analogous. Your nonsense tactics here are completely dishonest, and on display. You’re happy to throw stupid questions at people which you know are a waste of time, but when you get asked equivalent questions it’s all ‘irrelevant’.
I engage with the fact that christians have their evidences for christianity, and I try to point out another point of view. You appear to have read Dawkins’ entire God Delusion and are now saying “what evidence?” Either this is the childish tactic of acting dumb, or you refuse to engage with what Dawkins is actually saying and engage with his evidences. Either way, methinks you are afraid of something….

“What does that have to do with ancient history? How do you get from the
inference, “The past has been like the present in my lifetime” to the
conclusion “Therefore, the past has always been like the present”?”
Via people in the recent past, and a long way back, through all sorts of obviously false superstitious beliefs and obviously false religious beliefs, and the fact that in realms where people believe religious things there is never one religion, the advent of modern standards of evidence, and the emotional component that is a factor in all religions. And particularly the observation that it seems absurd that only one religion can be true given that they all have such similarities and, very importantly, that religious views are so much a context of where one is born and brought up. Granted this last point is getting further removed but it is an important part of the very un-objectivity of religion which ties in with it’s pluralism and therefore incredulity that one is the correct one.

“I consider that the gospels are not good evidence at all. Like other
religious texts, they contain claims which are outrageously at odds with
the world which we can observe for ourselves.”
“What you mean is, they contain miracles. And since you don’t believe in miracles, obviously the gospels are not good evidence. Historiography be damned!
Is your entire worldview based on wishful thinking, confirmation bias, and question-begging?”
Yes miracles, but also other things like that there is a god, spirits and demons etc. I don’t believe in miracles Because of religious texts like the gospels! Because all religions texts can’t be right. Look, if there were no other religion in the world besides christianity, I would almost certainly be a christian.
But no, historiography not be damned! It is distorted historiography that would lead one to think that historiography shows the gospels to be ‘true’.

“Amusing, considering Paul came along some time after the apostles had already “started” Christianity!”

To my knowledge, Paul’s writings were before the gospels, where the apostles are ‘evidenced’.

“I think that people generally leave religion for rational reasons, and go to it for emotional ones.”
“Another red herring—and a rubbish one at that…. ”

I have to confess I am quite staggered by your comments here. Maybe you are just trying to gainsay anything I say. Or maybe its the whole no true scotsman thing that anyone who leaves must not have understood christianity, because otherwise this undermines my absolutist beliefs about it. Either way you are far, far from reality. There are just so many people I know who left christianity for reasons of lack of evidence. People usually brought up to believe, and when they grow up they wake up to the lack of perspective and evidence.

“I think you can be rational and not be a Christian. You can rationally
believe atheism. But in the final analysis, I don’t think there is any warrant
for not being a Christian. You can’t have a warranted belief in the
non-existence of the Christian God, or the falsehood of the Christian
scriptures. Unsurprisingly, you don’t know what rationality is.”

I know what rationality means. You can most certainly have warranted belief in there being no god, or in scriptures. I do, I have given many reasons.

“I think that the need for religion to be true is so strong that people
can spend their lives building systems to ‘prove’ it true, when in fact
ultimately they are simply trying to prove it to themselves.”
“Since non-Christians are in rebellion against God, and know it’s only a
matter of time until they are judged, the need to escape God is so
strong that they spend their lives building systems to “prove” either
that he doesn’t exist, or that if he does he is not a threat to them.”

I notice that every term in my statement is virtually undeniable, the thing that is debatable is what the statement means as a whole. Compare this to yours. Yours contains several two words which are very questionable: ‘god’ and ‘judged’. As a result my statement is objectively far more likely to be true. It is not based upon such dubious notions.

“I’d say that the central argument in the God Delusion is simply “where the *^#) is the evidence for god?”
So you didn’t read it then. Or watch the video above. Dawkins uses
several arguments in the God Delusion, and they all fail miserably, as
Craig demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt.
Yes, and yes, some of the video. Dawkins may well have addressed some ‘logical’ arguments but I don’t think that is the main force of his book, a long time ago though it was since I read it. As I have said all along it’s about epistemology. You can use logical arguments to ‘prove’ anything, it’s all about how credulous you want to be with the assumptions. You ‘prove’ to yourself that christianity is true, a muslim ‘proves to himself that islam is true. So what? That doesn’t help. I’ve no doubt that if cosmologists were saying that the universe didn’t have a beginning, Craig would be claiming that that is what Genesis says oweing to the word ‘bara’. That is the point of religion, it’s impossible to disprove because it steers well clear (now that it has learned) away from observable, objective evidence

“The claim that god exists is extraordinary, but the evidence is anything but.”
“More begging the question. There’s nothing extraordinary about the claim
that God exists unless you have presupposed that he doesn’t. And if God
exists, then the claim that he doesn’t is the most extraordinary claim
you could come up with.”

This is begging the question in turn. If you want god to exist then of course you are going to rely on claiming that people are begging the question, because it can just be bleated out to anything that any worldview says. I’d like to see you come up with a position of evidence that it can’t be used on. This keeps things nicely in the realm of nobody-can-prove-anything-so-my-beliefs-can-remain-unexposed…..now I’m beginning to think that maybe you aren’t aware of this and you are at the mercy of your worldview.

‘Your comments will be blocked if you continue to present assertions and insults instead of arguments and evidence.”
Hehe. Yes, using your definitions of those terms!

“Considering your obvious ignorance of just about every topic we’ve
discussed here; considering that Stuart and I have clearly spent a lot
more time than you have investigating the evidence for and against God;
and considering (if your performance is anything to go by) that we have
also spent a great deal more time debating hostile interlocutors than
you have”
Clearly it hasn’t occurred to you that people in touch with the actual world don’t bother learning all sorts of arcane logical terms or biased christian epistemological terms, don’t confuse ‘investigating’ with trying to justify, or spend huge portions of their lives arguing about such topics. Why?

They don’t need to.

They don’t need to because truth is obvious. One only needs to do these things if what one wants to believe is not well evidenced by actual objective evidence, as opposed to ‘logical’ argument which is only logical if you are already biased toward accepting the propositions, choosey historiography, and begging-the-question excuses as to why evidence is not in the form that anyone would demand of most everything else in modern enlightened living.

Stuart,

“With 2 philosophical proofs and 2 confirmations from science….”

It has always seemed obvious to me that it wouldn’t make sense for the universe – as in, absolutely everything – to begin to exist because, well, what would cause it to begin to exist?

Craig also seems to claim that the cause must be timeless, but I’m not sure where he pulls that from. I know of nothing timeless. Heck, we don’t even understand time completely let alone postulate something timeless. I presume it is tempting to jump at this if one is a theist but it is all in a very, very grey area. For instance, I don’t think physicists even think that the big bang was the ‘beginning’ of the universe. They point to the possibility of a multiverse or something unknown, and I’ve heard several say that we don’t have mathematics or models to explain singularities which is what our current model says the universe started out as!?! So as ‘proof’ goes I rather think the Kalam argument is pretty far from concrete. And I am, as always, suspicious as to why this ‘proof’, like any other for a god, is not in a clear, well understood area of our knowledge about the world. Predictably, it is at or over the limits of our knowledge. It wouldn’t be that hard for god to put blatant and undeniable proof in an obviously accessible way. Why put it at or over the limits of our knowledge?

And I’m thinking also, “if there was good scientific evidence that the universe was eternal, would I consider this good evidence that there is no god?” I don’t think I would. The whole of this Kalam argument seems to depend upon the words “in the beginning”, a book written by iron age superstitious people! In fact, as I just responded to Bnonn, Genesis only says that god filled it, not made it.

I hadn’t heard of the Bord, Guth, Vilenkin theorum. Looked it up and found this. Seems interesting.
http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/borde-guth-vilenkin/

Peterpieman,

Why would the notion that something began to exist become nonsensical if you did not know what caused that something to exist?And “obviously [nonsensical]“, in your words?

The cause of the universe must be timeless because the universe includes time. The cause of time can’t (without creation) be in time.

The big bang is the beginning of the universe on the standard model. Other cosmologist have proposed theories that extend the life of the universe past the big bang, but after the long series of these different models that have failed to commend themselves for any great length to the scientific community, that if true do not avert a beginning anyway, and the Bord-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (2003) I mentioned before, which holds for any universe that has in its history been in a state of cosmic expansion, it is no longer reasonable, in the current state of the discipline, to believe the universe is eternal (i.e. beginningless).

Now, this is not a proof. Scientific reasoning will always be provisional. However, the predictions of the standard model (of a cosmic beginning) have not been averted. This is therefore an adequate confirmation of the beginning of the universe.

You say you’re suspicious about these proofs being at the limits or even beyond of our knowledge when it wouldn’t have been hard for God to place evidence in an obvious, accessible, blatant, and undeniable reach of us. A few things. 1. Well, as I said, the scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe from Big Bang cosmology is not a proof. Its a confirmation of the proofs which are philosophical and which everyone has always had. 2. More importantly, you presume to know too much by considering it suspicious that the evidence for God should be more obvious, etc. For all you know God may have really good reasons for giving the (scant in your opinion) evidence he has. In fact, that seem plausible to me given Christian theism for various reasons. 3. I don’t think the knowledge of God is chiefly by the evidence (see Plantinga’s religious epistemology).

You quote “if there was good evidence that the universe was eternal, would i consider this good evidence that there is no god?”. Not sure where you got this quoted question from. But I agree with you here – I don’t think I would either. I would say if that were the case that the KCA fails as a good argument for God’s existence. There are however other cosmological arguments (and design, and moral arguments, etc.) that are independent of any cosmological theory. Aquinas’ and Leibnitz’s cosmological arguments for instance don’t rely on the idea that universe began to exist.

You are right – the Kalaam does rely on the universe having a beginning. Thats the second premise after all. This idea is found in scripture even if you don’t accept that the Genesis account of creation is talking about a creatio ex nihilo (I wrote something on this a while back). But the idea of the universe beginning to exist is not unique to scripture. It is found in 2 philosophical proofs and 2 confirmations from science as well. You should know that the project of Natural Theology does not rely on or reference revealed tradition, so lifting your nose to the arguments because the ideas they are based on are also found in the scripture is quite silly.

Its evident to me that the author of the website you cite has not sufficiently engaged with Craig’s work in this area. If they had done their homework properly they would, for instance, know that Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal is not eternal in the past, but has a beginning. Hawking’s model also has other problems with it, which Craig goes through elsewhere.

Peter, there really seems nothing more to say to you. You’ve added nothing to the discussion with your latest comment. Your entire argumentative strategy revolves around assuming the non-existence of God, the falsehood of miracles, etc, and then pretending this proves the non-existence of God, the falsehood of miracles etc. If you have actual reasons for your atheism I expect you’d have presented them by now. As it is, you rely purely on your conviction that atheism is the most rational option and that belief in God is nonsensical. You don’t evaluate arguments and evidence that others put forward, or discuss it reasonably. So I don’t think there’s any point in you continuing to post here.

Marc, thanks for your comment. But why are you surprised that I am aggressive in defending my faith? Why
are you surprised that I am insulting about unbelievers who come here,
not seeking truth, but with the clear intention of mocking Christianity
and of turning others away from it?

After all, Peter is not a “seeker”. He is a
scoffer. Someone stepping in to try to lead people away from Christ. So I am following (or trying to follow) biblical examples of dealing with such people. Elijah openly mocked the
prophets of Baal, suggesting they call louder to their god in case he
was off taking a leak. Paul aggressively calls
the Jewish sorcerer a child of the devil to his face, describing him as an enemy of everything that is
right, full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Jesus calls
pagans filthy animals—pigs and dogs. Paul wishes the circumcision party would
cut their penises off!

is the primary objective of apologetics and debate merely to win the argument at all costs?

No, I don’t think so. The primary objective of apologetics is to vindicate the Christian
faith—to show that it is true beyond reasonable doubt. Both to unbelievers and Christians. That doesn’t just involve argumentation. It involves behavior too. There is sometimes a place for letting an argument go, even when you’re right. Indeed, I think that is something that is critical in face-to-face apologetics (and sometimes online). It’s often better to back off and show some sympathy or some patience, rather than push through and win the argument. The latter can close people off in anger or hurt; the former can keep the conversation open and display the grace of Christ.

But there is also definitely a place for pushing hard for the win. Against hostile, patronizing opponents it is often very important. Not for them, necessarily, but for onlookers. Especially Christian onlookers. There’s nothing more demoralizing than seeing your team capitulate when you know it shouldn’t.

This is not my interpretation, and certainly not how
we were instructed to ‘give a reason for our hope’.

Okay, well let’s talk about your interpretation. To whom does Peter say we must gently give a reason for the hope? And when? To persecutors, when we are behaving well
when persecuted. So we should not respond with
similar violence or cruelty or oppression. That doesn’t seem directly pertinent to a blog though.

And of course, Peter’s statement is not
the only place where we are told how to interact with unbelievers. We have to weigh it against some very different examples and advice re apologetic situations. In 2 Corinthians 10:5 Paul reminds us we are at war, and that we should destroy the intellectual strongholds and
pretensions of unbelievers. And I’ve already mentioned a few instances of leaders responding to hostile unbelievers.

Indeed, these sorts of responses are useful precisely to show what
complete garbage unbelievers bring to bear against Christianity. Pretending
as if these sorts of “arguments”, especially the schoolyard psychoanalysis, are anything other than vacuous
nonsense, as if they are in any sense worthy of respect or serious
consideration and response, is extremely unhelpful.

I am certain that many critics who visit this site
have no interest in sophisticated, open-minded discussion, and are
indeed only here to insult or abuse; does it follow that we should reply
in turn?

We should respond biblically. The question is, what does that response look like?

Is the central role of apologetics not to respectfuly
reason with someone and present God as the most rational worldview
possible, answering their doubts and opening their heart to allow Christ
in?

No, it is to vindicate Christian truth-claims. Of course, what you describe is an ideal way of doing it. But that presupposes a respectful opponent. On the other
hand, Proverbs gives us the option of answering a fool according to his
folly. And of scoffers it advises us to kick them out (22:10).

I just dont see anyone being encouraged to join a
forum, or return,  when they see people (however they have conducted
their argument themselves) being accused of “bulls**t” and told to “sod
off”.

Maybe you don’t. But speaking for myself, I would be much more encouraged to join a
forum where trolls were dealt with decisively, and where reasonable debate
was required. I would feel much more confident about having a
productive discussion and learning something.

Btw, you’ll notice I’ve had very amicable discussions with other atheists on
this site. Commenters who are willing to listen and respond and keep
the discussion moving forward are always welcome. That is exactly the
point of this forum, and that is why I protect it from people like Peter
who are incapable of doing this.

That sort of anger and resentment is not from God

I’m not sure why you interpret my responses as angry and resentful—let alone
saying they’re not from God. I think you’d need to interact with the examples I
cited before to get those allegations through. To my mind, this kind of response is biblical. It’s not an impulsive, emotional flare-up. I don’t feel a
personal grievance against Peter. I am jealous for the truth, but that
is quite a different thing to just being angry. I think one of the huge problems we have
with discourse today is that people are not taught to separate arguments
and emotions. Just because I call a spade a spade doesn’t mean the veins on my neck are popping out when I do it.

I know from this site and the live events thats you guys have such an important ministry

I appreciate your support. I think apologetics is
critical to the church. But of course, God can tear down Thinking Matters and raise
up a dozen similar organizations out of the earth if he wants to. Still, as
long as we’re here, I’ll do my best; and I think part of that
involves aggressively defending ourselves and our ministry from the
aggressive attacks of Satan’s unwitting fanboys.

William Lane Craig made the salient point – the greatest apologetic tool we have is the life each of us chooses to lead.

God knows I am not as good a man as William Lane Craig. But I am also
quite a different man. I’d be surprised if Craig had an aggressive bone
in his body :) The church needs people like him. But as I’ve pointed out,
there’s nothing unbiblical about aggression. The church needs that too.
So I use the personality God gave me as best I can. I’d appreciate your
prayers, and of course your response if you still disagree.

Looks like Disqus is mutilating the line breaks on comments…sorry about that.

hi.
in response, how a Muslim would respond to a non-believer is not my primary concern Peter. My point is this: the role of Christian Apologetics is to rationaly explain the doubts and difficult questions that we should not try to pretend aren’t there. For some people this may well lead to them embracing the Christian faith, for others the evidence will still not point towards the validity of Christianity and will reject it, as is their right. My comment was simply that a Christian Apologetics website should not be abusing people who visit it’s forums, to me that seems pretty self-evident.
thanks again
marc

bnonn im still surprised that you have launched into such a tirade against a quite reasonable observation. there seems to more than a hint of Pride present if I may say so.
however you wish to pursue your apologetic strategy is entirely your decision. If you are convinced that abusing someone, who admittedly is less than gracious in his own posts, using terms like “bullshit” and telling him to “sod off” is appropriate and in keeping with the Christian paradigm, and you have nothing to be corrected for, then that is entirely your choice. You seem to miss my point that for every person you abuse there could be many more reading the discussion and taking your approach as what the Christian viewpoint entails.
Im sorry if you feel offended that someone has criticised you; this was not my intention. I merely thought that this website cared about bringing people to salvation in Christ, not about demonstrating superior debating skills and keeping a scorecard of arguments won.

Hi Marc, I’m not sure how my reply is a tirade? A long angry or violent speech, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature? I was just offering my own view on some issues you raised. Can you point me to why you think I was being angry? Seems like you’re seeing a lot of emotion in my comments that isn’t there when I write them :)

If you are convinced that abusing someone, who admittedly is less than gracious in his own posts, using terms like “bullshit” and telling him to “sod off” is appropriate and in keeping with the Christian paradigm, and you have nothing to be corrected for, then that is entirely your choice.

Well, again, this comes down to what the Bible shows us is appropriate. If it turns out I’ve misinterpreted or misapplied Scripture, then I’m quite open to your correction. You haven’t really interacted with that, though. It seems more like you just think I should be nicer. But I’m not sure what standard you’re using to draw that conclusion. I guess it seems obvious to you, but I’m afraid it’s not as clear to me.

Regarding the specific language I used, I don’t think it’s exactly a paradigm case for abuse. Language has its context. For example, “bullshit” might not be a word you’d hear on the evening news, but in pretty much any conversational setting in New Zealand it wouldn’t prompt a second thought.

You seem to miss my point that for every person you abuse there could be many more reading the discussion and taking your approach as what the Christian viewpoint entails.

Well, I’ve defended my view that the Christian viewpoint does entail dealing harshly with scoffers. That it does involve standing up for your beliefs and roundly condeming false ones. Why should I be ashamed of that?

You haven’t engaged with my defense. It seems like you want Christian discourse to always be “nice” and polite. But that seems like a reflection of your preferences, rather than what the Bible actually says.

Im sorry if you feel offended that someone has criticised you

But I don’t feel offended. How could I operate as a human being if I was offended any time someone criticized me, considering I started this website? Could you perhaps quote the relevant section of my earlier reply where you think I seem offended? I’m trying to understand why you keep imputing these emotions to me that simply aren’t there.

Mind you, that does raise an interesting question: you seem to think I have wronged Peter in my previous comments. But if Peter himself doesn’t feel wronged, then it’s hard to see that you have a case.

I merely thought that this website cared about bringing people to salvation in Christ, not about demonstrating superior debating skills and keeping a scorecard of arguments won.

Well, you’ve accused me of pride, so now I’m going to accuse you of being passive-aggressive and not listening or engaging charitably with my remarks. I was quite clear on this in my previous reply to you. Please go back and read it again.

im afraid im not the sort of person to indulge you in your thirst for argument; even when noone is actually arguing with you bnonn. so, i will leave you carry on with this discussion on your own as the actual comments from other people are largely inconsequential to you.
its compelling that in such volumous responses from you, complete with facecious dictionary definitions, there is no room for the slightest reflection that might suggest- ‘yeah, you know looking back maybe i was lured into a reaction and i could have made a better judgement call, but y’know, im only human’ ,
that seems far, far too painful for your heart to consider.
equally it is always concerning when someone goes to such extent of multiple quotations from scripture to justify their actions obviously at odds with canonical teaching, I can think of numerous teachings direct from Christ in the New Testament that condemn you where you stand. The noted difference being I refuse to manipulate the word of God to serve a vengeful argument born of personal ego.
Your comments actually formed much of the discussion at our study group last night, and the tone was one of unanimous astonishement. The fact that you see bringing people to God as of secondary importance to the primary goal of vindicating your argument fatally undermines any credibility you claim to have. In this regard, you might be the only Christian apologist in history who seperates the salvation of non-believers from the primary goal of winning your arguement.
Bnonn, you’re really, really not that important. It’s really, really not about you.
Every non-believer you abuse, insult or drive further away from God is just as cherised a creation as you are. And we are clearly told how God longs to be reunited with his lost children and how much joy there will be if just one of them returns to Him. Yet this, by your own admission, is not the primary goal of your work. So in essence, reconcilling God with his lost children is of secondary importance to you, bringing joy to God is of secondary importance to you; God is of secondary importance to you.
The primary objective, above all others, is for you to feel the pleasure of winning, to be superior, dominating, victorious, powerful and beyond defeat. If God is reconcilled with one of his children who he created, well, thats not really that important is it? I am sure God will be incredibly proud of when you stand before him and declare that you could have used your intellect and platform to bring Gods children back to him, but hey, thats not what it was all about! but, He should have seen you smash those guys in the debate.
My Pastor made a lighthearted analogy last night, that you remind him of a soldier going to war, who wears the same uniform as everyone else, but no longer cares what the mission is, what the objectives are or, what the orders are he was given, just as long as he gets to shoot at people with his gun. If thats means losing the war or compromising the rest of his platoon, who cares, as long as you get to shoot people.
Interestingly,12 people, so far, from my church have now said they will not be visiting, or advising others to visit the site, nor will they be supporting any more live events; im sure there will be other churches of similiar opinion.
So you are now doing damage to your own ministry, driving Christians away from you who could lend support, and driving non-believers away who you have the ability to save. I note another recent discussion which ended with the other person declaring he would not return to the site due to your abuse.
In one of your comments above you invited my prayers, and I will certainly pray for you Bnonn.
I will pray that your heart is not always so blinded by power and pride, and at some point you find the capacity to demonstrate the humility that evades you so evidently. I will also pray that God, in his wisdom, did not lead any non-believer to you in the hope that you would be the person who might help them move towards accepting His love. I will pray that those people go on to have some sort of contact with a genuine, true apologist who is prepared to lay aside all personal desire and pride, and spend the time needed to bring them to salvation in Christ.  I wil pray that you do not drive any more of Gods children even further away from Him. Above all, I will pray that when you do stand before God you do not hear the words ‘I never knew you’.
You seem like a very smart guy; but you have things horribly confused. Its not about you.
I pray that you find the fufillment you crave, but from the proper source. A Christian should shine a light to show others the glory of God; a Christian hypocrite merely casts a dark shadow on the rest of us.
God Bless.
Marc.

Marc, I must say that’s a disappointing response. Given that you called me out for behavior you thought was inappropriate, I expected you’d at least interact with my reasons, rather than just smear me. That seems very hypocritical.

im not the sort of person to indulge you in your thirst for argument

That’s a very uncharitable interpretation, especially considering you don’t know me, and I have been nothing but civil to you. I also have to wonder why you posted your initial comment if you weren’t prepared to argue for your position?

even when noone is actually arguing with you bnonn

When someone states that I’ve done something wrong, they’re starting an argument if I happen to disagree. Presumably you haven’t taken back your original comment. So it certainly seems that, as a matter of fact, you are arguing with me.

as the actual comments from other people are largely inconsequential to you.

Not only is this another uncharitable snippet of ad hominem, but it’s also patently false. Why would I bother replying, let alone as carefully as I did, if I considered your comments inconsequential?

its compelling that in such volumous responses from you

Your latest response is much longer than mine. Is length an indicator of error or intent or something?

complete with facecious dictionary definitions

You called my response a “tirade”. I was making sure we both understood what that meant. Needless to say, you haven’t given any reason for why it should be considered one. Instead, you’ve packed in the passive-aggressiveness and replaced it with simple slander. For someone who is so concerned about me abusing others, you certainly have no problem abusing me.

there is no room for the slightest reflection that might suggest- ‘yeah, you know looking back maybe i was lured into a reaction and i could have made a better judgement call, but y’know, im only human’

You are bearing false witness. Quoth me: “To my mind, this kind of response is biblical. It’s not an impulsive, emotional flare-up.” … “God knows I am not as good a man as William Lane Craig …  I use the personality God gave me as best I can. I’d appreciate your prayers, and of course your response if you still disagree.” … “If it turns out I’ve misinterpreted or misapplied Scripture, then I’m quite open to your correction.” Etc.

that seems far, far too painful for your heart to consider.

Yet you refuse to consider the biblical support for my actions. A holier-than-thou attitude isn’t a substitute for a counter-argument. You pay lip-service to piousness, but when someone disagrees with your assessment you immediately resort to this kind of impious rhetoric?

it is always concerning when someone goes to such extent of multiple quotations from scripture to justify their actions obviously at odds with canonical teaching

Are you saying Scripture is wrong in this case, or that I am misapplying it? In either case, you need to argue for your position. You’re acting like a pharisee.

I can think of numerous teachings direct from Christ in the New Testament that condemn you where you stand.

The same Christ who called the pharisees a brood of vipers, called pagans pigs and dogs, and inspired the inscripturation of the other examples I cited? 

The noted difference being I refuse to manipulate the word of God to serve a vengeful argument born of personal ego.

Oh I see. You don’t need to do exegesis because you can just beg the question and insult me instead. It’s hard to tell if you really think you’re being pious and are just incredibly blind, or if you’re just a troll who has taken a dislike to me. Either way, this is obviously not a conversation that’s going to bear fruit.

Your comments actually formed much of the discussion at our study group last night, and the tone was one of unanimous astonishement.

Considering the theological incompetence of most study groups, that hardly surprises me. But why didn’t you invite me along to defend myself? Surely you’re not afraid of having your views tested?

The fact that you see bringing people to God as of secondary importance to the primary goal of vindicating your argument

You’re bearing false witness. Quoth me: “The primary objective of apologetics is to vindicate the Christian faith—to show that it is true beyond reasonable doubt … That doesn’t just involve argumentation. It involves behavior too. There is sometimes a place for letting an argument go, even when you’re right.”

In this regard, you might be the only Christian apologist in history who seperates the salvation of non-believers from the primary goal of winning your arguement.

Either you are willfully mischaracterizing me or you’re simply incompetent at reading.

Bnonn, you’re really, really not that important. It’s really, really not about you.

Again you misrepresent me in the most uncharitable way, implying that I think I am “really, really important” and that apologetics (or something) is “really, really about me”. I explicitly acknowledged that this is not about me when I said, “But of course, God can tear down Thinking Matters and raise up a dozen similar organizations out of the earth if he wants to.”

Every non-believer you abuse, insult or drive further away from God is just as cherised a creation as you are.

Since I’m a Calvinist, I don’t buy this tendentious premise.

And we are clearly told how God longs to be reunited with his lost children and how much joy there will be if just one of them returns to Him. Yet this, by your own admission, is not the primary goal of your work.

Indeed. My work is apologetics. Not evangelism. That’s a basic distinction.

So in essence, reconcilling God with his lost children is of secondary importance to you, bringing joy to God is of secondary importance to you; God is of secondary importance to you.

This is just an incredible conclusion to your convoluted line of reasoning. Unfortunately it’s a line of reasoning which is completely out of touch with reality.

The primary objective, above all others, is for you to feel the pleasure of winning, to be superior, dominating, victorious, powerful and beyond defeat.

You’ve obviously decided this in advance, and regardless of how reasonable my defense of my actions turns out to be, you’re not willing to change your mind. Ironically, you’re doing the exact thing you’re accusing me of.

My Pastor made a lighthearted analogy last night, that you remind him of a soldier going to war, who wears the same uniform as everyone else, but no longer cares what the mission is, what the objectives are or, what the orders are he was given, just as long as he gets to shoot at people with his gun.

Is your pastor in the habit of passing these sorts of judgments on people he has never met, behind their backs, without bothering to even talk to them first? What was his response to my defense of my actions from Scripture? Did he exegete the relevant passages to demonstrate why I was wrong?

More importantly, if your pastor really feels this way about me, I think it is incumbent upon him to contact my pastor and express his concerns. If my actions are truly as awful as you’re making out, then something needs to be done immediately.

Interestingly,12 people, so far, from my church have now said they will not be visiting, or advising others to visit the site, nor will they be supporting any more live events; im sure there will be other churches of similiar opinion.

Well, I’m quite conflicted about that. On the one hand, I regret causing offense to other Christians, and losing their support. Especially since this website is run by more than just me.

On the other hand, I recognize that the truth is divisive. If Christians are going to condemn me, or at least not support me, because I try to adhere to Scripture, then in a sense that’s so much the worse for them.

I note another recent discussion which ended with the other person declaring he would not return to the site due to your abuse.

Indeed; and I acknowledged that I may have been overzealous, and apologized in that thread. Odd that you don’t mention that.

In one of your comments above you invited my prayers, and I will certainly pray for you Bnonn.
I will pray that your heart is not always so blinded by power and pride, and at some point you find the capacity to demonstrate the humility that evades you so evidently.

Even though I think you’re wrong about this issue, I still appreciate that. I can always use more humility. God knows I have far too little.

I will also pray that God, in his wisdom, did not lead any non-believer to you in the hope that you would be the person who might help them move towards accepting His love.

Well, this doesn’t make sense. Do you think God did not know the outcome before he initiated the leading? Whatever happened, it was precisely as God intended.

You seem like a very smart guy; but you have things horribly confused.

If I’m so smart, maybe you’ll consider that I have actually considered this issue many times, and have good reasons for the conclusions I’m defending.

Bnonn , im really not that important. Utilise you time to pray and ask God for true direction.
God Bless and take care.
Marc

Shredding is so slow! Here’s an idea… let’s burn books that frighten us.
What a pack of pretentious theo-fascists! Time to face the facts… 
We have the fossils. 
We have the DNA. 
We win

I approved this comment because it’s arguments like this that prove the New Atheism is intellectually vapid.
My response: Ad hominem. Non sequitur. No chance.

Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving. At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison—that I may make it clear, which is how I ought to speak.

Walk in wisdom towards outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.

—Colossians 4.2–6

Bnonn, can I ask you a question?

If you were able, would you give up your salvation for the salvation of others? For the salvation of, say, Dawkins?

Thomas, re your first comment, notice Paul is referring to outsiders. Presumably those trying to understand our faith. He isn’t talking in the context of scoffers.

We can’t set him against himself. We can’t look at what he says about how we should act without also looking at how he himself acted. Remember, he is also the fellow who called unbelievers children of the devil, and publicly wished others would cut off their genitalia. So we need to interpret Scripture with Scripture.

Re your second comment, I suppose it depends. Perhaps for those closest to me I would. But I must be honest I would not for someone like Dawkins. I’m not even sure I should, but if I should then I’m not sure I could. Quite frankly, hell terrifies me.

Thomas, sure, scoffers are outsiders. The question is whether they are the kind of outsiders Paul has in mind in that passage. What is the situation he is speaking to? It doesn’t seem to be the same situation in which you see him taking people to task in very harsh, condemning language.

My concern is that you are taking certain biblical passages out of their scriptural and cultural contexts and using them to support a way of interacting with people who oppose Christians that is quite unbiblical.

Okay, well again, we can’t set Scripture against itself. If you think I’m taking passages out of context, you need to show why. It can’t just be because “Christians should never act like that” or something. You need exegetical arguments. On the face of it, it seems very clear that there are times when the appropriate response is to strongly condemn rather than to be gracious. And I think there are good practical reasons for that. Indeed, I think it is vital for the health of the church and the ministry of the gospel that scoffers and mockers are turfed out on their ears to avoid a lot of wasted time and energy that could be better devoted to people who are actually interested in listening to the reasons we believe.

The problem I see in a lot of churches today is that people are so afraid to hurt others’ feelings, or to be seen as judgmental or harsh, that they compromise the truth and the body of Christ by daring not speak out against obvious error and obvious time-wasters. They simply aren’t honoring what God himself says about how we should deal with these sorts of problems, these sorts of people.

If I were an atheist and I read some of the things that have been written above, I would be pleased and proud to be a nonbeliever

Well, that would be a double indictment on you then. Not only can you not fairly evaluate the arguments, but you’re replacing logic with emotion.

Remember, I’m not suggesting this should be how we deal with everyone. I’m specifically talking about scoffers. Unfortunately we get a lot of those here.

What is the primary purpose of apologetics, if not to aid in evangelism

Apologetics has two prongs. Firstly, to overcome any reasons people have not to believe the gospel. Secondly, to encourage and equip Christians themselves by vindicating their faith. I am equally concerned with the latter as the former. Indeed, I am more so, because I am keenly aware that most Christians are incredibly poorly schooled in their faith. I think that’s nowhere more evident than in Marc’s unfortunate comments above.

I don’t see the primary purpose of apologetics, per se, as aiding evangelism. I think that’s its primary purpose to an evangelist. But I am not an evangelist. As you can no doubt tell, I’m not what you might call a people person. I don’t think my calling is evangelism—not any more than any other Christian. I think my calling is in providing a resource to Christians who need answers to tough questions, and to unbelievers who are looking for answers.

Don’t think I’m diminishing the importance of evangelism. I’m not. I believe it is every Christian’s duty. But some are called to it specifically, and some are called to other things. I think I’m in the latter group. And so I don’t use evangelistic effectiveness as a criteria for judging everything I do. I don’t think that’s valid. In fact, I think we’d get very little done within Christianity if all we did was evangelize. Heck, one of my major criticisms of the modern church is that it only caters to “seekers” and new converts, at the expense of feeding mature Christians spiritual meat.

Hopefully that gives you some sense of where I’m coming from.

Jesus and Paul spoke harshly to those who claimed to be God’s people and yet did not act accordingly—to hypocrites, in other words. Jesus called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers,” and Paul wished that the circumcision preachers, the unsettlers, would “emasculate themselves.” Nowhere in the Bible are believers told to abuse or insult a sceptic or to drive her away from God.

You wrote, “I think my calling is in providing a resource to Christians who need
answers to tough questions, and to unbelievers who are looking for
answers.” Excellent! But good resources are only part of the story; the way you and your colleagues conduct yourselves reflects on the Gospel, too. The Bible does not promise that Christians will be able to provide strong arguments for their faith, but it does promise that the lives of Christians will be transformed and changed by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus and Paul spoke harshly to those who claimed to be God’s people and yet did not act accordingly—to hypocrites, in other words.

That’s one group. But Elijah spoke harshly to those who did not claim to be God’s people at all. Rather, they made it their business to turn people away from God.

The Bible doesn’t reserve rebukes, invective etc for hypocrites. Rather, it is concerned with those who lead others away from the truth, who appoint themselves as apologists against the truth. This is why Proverbs, for example, says so many things about fools and scoffers, rather than just about false teachers. So you’re drawing too narrow a boundary.

Nowhere in the Bible are believers told to abuse or insult a sceptic or to drive her away from God.

Notice how you’re subtly changing your language. You’ve turned a scoffer into a “sceptic”. But they’re not the same. You can see for yourself that I deal differently with people who are merely skeptical than with people who set themselves up to ridicule Christianity or lead others away from it.

Similarly, you speak of abusing and insulting. But of course, although the Bible doesn’t use those terms, it certainly speaks of rebuking and reproving. And it explicitly acknowledges that “a scoffer does not like to be reproved” (Pr 15:12); indeed, that if you reprove a scoffer “he will hate you” and that “whoever corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury” (Pr 9:8,7). So clearly scoffers, and apparently those sympathetic to them, see rebukes like this as abusive and insulting.

Moreover, while I hardly think that driving a scoffer away from this website is equivalent to driving him away from God, Proverbs 22:10 explicitly says to “drive out a scoffer, and strife will go out, and quarreling and abuse will cease.”

Unless, of course, other believers to take up the scoffer’s cause after he leaves…

The Bible does not promise that Christians will be able to provide
strong arguments for their faith, but it does promise that the lives of
Christians will be transformed and changed by the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, and one of those transformations is a zealousness and jealousy for the truth, and an intolerance of willful error.

Does “zealousness and jealousy for the truth, and an intolerance of willful error” mean that one must be abusive or insulting to a sceptic scoffer? William Lane Craig, for instance, surely has a commitment to the truth and a very effective ministry; but never once have I heard him abuse or insult even the most vitriolic of his opponents. I don’t understand why you’re trying to defend a view that neither Scripture nor any contemporary evangelical theologian of whom I am aware espouses. Could you list some of the biblical passages which recommend that scoffers be abused and insulted?

Hi Stuart,

“Why would the notion that something began to exist become nonsensical if
you did not know what caused that something to exist?And “obviously
[nonsensical]“, in your words?”

Sorry I could have been clearer. What I should have said is that it has always seemed obvious to me that the universe couldn’t begin to exist because why is the thing that caused the universe to be there, there? It hurts my mind – though I love doing it – to wonder “why the universe?”, and my mind goes further and further back and there is no answer. It’s amazing.

“The cause of the universe must be timeless because the universe includes
time. The cause of time can’t (without creation) be in time. ”

Physicists don’t seem to call the big bang the end of the story, though, and I don’t think they’d claim that the cause of the universe needs to be timeless – there can be time outside of time, aparently. But I agree that it seems impossible for the cause of our time to be within our time (on the other hand, weirder things have happened in physics!).
I believe, though, that your statement disrespects the meaning of the word ’cause’. Or at least, my version. And that, I think, is at base the reason why I reject a beginning to the universe. For what does the word beginning even mean without time?!

“More importantly, you presume to know too much by considering it
suspicious that the evidence for God should be more obvious, etc. For
all you know God may have really good reasons for giving the (scant in
your opinion) evidence he has.”

Yeah, maybe. But then this might be true of astrology. Maybe there is a reason that they can be explained by the confirmation bias, as James Randi has shown, and despite this, despite not being more obvious in every day life, maybe they are still really (really) true. Or maybe Vishnu has a reason for being unobjectively evidenced.

” In fact, that seem plausible to me given
Christian theism for various reasons. 3. I don’t think the knowledge of
God is chiefly by the evidence (see Plantinga’s religious epistemology).
”

The problem is that these statements are contradictory. You have just used evidence (the non-obviousness of evidence for the christian god) to bolster your belief in the christian god. And you have used an epistemology which claims that knowledge of god is not via evidence, as evidence.
It is my position that all of the evidence for god or christianity is within this un-obvious realm, and all subject to the confirmation bias. Give me a good miracle, or god appearing and talking with me, and I’ll believe in a heartbeat. It’s not that big a request is it? It purportedly happened to plenty of people in the Bible, particularly Jesus’ time.

“You quote “if there was good evidence that the universe was eternal,
would i consider this good evidence that there is no god?”. Not sure
where you got this quoted question from. But I agree with you here”
Lol. They were thinking-marks.
I think that if causality is completely tied up with time, then I believe in an eternal-past and future universe. It’s probably more that space-time is completely tied up with causality. Looking up the Guth etc. theorum I also found this interesting, it’s short and well worth watching to see what space-time can do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfeJhzPq3jQ
This……….I don’t even know…….I would love to ask Guth “what does the universe which contains the bubble, exist in?”

But it gets worse. You have to remember that space-time – general relativity – is only a model, and this is mainly why I don’t consider that beginning-of-the-universe cosmology is much to count on. We can’t even explain why galaxies don’t fly apart – we can’t find the dark matter, if it even exists, and yet people are making claims about the entire universe, which we understand even less. Physicists have no trouble with the idea of eternal-future, and it would not surprise me if eternal-past became evidenced at some point either. But on this topic, and about the confirmation bias. I do think that if the evidence arose that the universe might be eternal-past that some christians would start to use the whole genesis-’bara’ thing as evidence that the bible is right again! It is in exactly this way that I think that the confirmation bias is at play with religion. People base their arguments and evidence and epistemologies upon what they want to believe. This exlplains so much about religions.

Say, could you provide a link to your article on creation ex-nihilo. I don’t know that much about the genesis-’bara’ thing.

Hi Stuart,

“Why would the notion that something began to exist become nonsensical if
you did not know what caused that something to exist?And “obviously
[nonsensical]“, in your words?”

Sorry I could have been clearer. What I should have said is that it has always seemed obvious to me that the universe couldn’t begin to exist because why is the thing that caused the universe to be there, there? It hurts my mind – though I love doing it – to wonder “why the universe?”, and my mind goes further and further back and there is no answer. It’s amazing.

“The cause of the universe must be timeless because the universe includes
time. The cause of time can’t (without creation) be in time. ”

Physicists don’t seem to call the big bang the end of the story, though, and I don’t think they’d claim that the cause of the universe needs to be timeless – there can be time outside of time, aparently. But I agree that it seems impossible for the cause of our time to be within our time (on the other hand, weirder things have happened in physics!).
I believe, though, that your statement disrespects the meaning of the word ’cause’. Or at least, my version. And that, I think, is at base the reason why I reject a beginning to the universe. For what does the word beginning even mean without time?!

“More importantly, you presume to know too much by considering it
suspicious that the evidence for God should be more obvious, etc. For
all you know God may have really good reasons for giving the (scant in
your opinion) evidence he has.”

Yeah, maybe. But then this might be true of astrology. Maybe there is a reason that they can be explained by the confirmation bias, as James Randi has shown, and despite this, despite not being more obvious in every day life, maybe they are still really (really) true. Or maybe Vishnu has a reason for being unobjectively evidenced.

” In fact, that seem plausible to me given
Christian theism for various reasons. 3. I don’t think the knowledge of
God is chiefly by the evidence (see Plantinga’s religious epistemology).
”

The problem is that these statements are contradictory. You have just used evidence (the non-obviousness of evidence for the christian god) to bolster your belief in the christian god. And you have used an epistemology which claims that knowledge of god is not via evidence, as evidence.
It is my position that all of the evidence for god or christianity is within this un-obvious realm, and all subject to the confirmation bias. Give me a good miracle, or god appearing and talking with me, and I’ll believe in a heartbeat. It’s not that big a request is it? It purportedly happened to plenty of people in the Bible, particularly Jesus’ time.

“You quote “if there was good evidence that the universe was eternal,
would i consider this good evidence that there is no god?”. Not sure
where you got this quoted question from. But I agree with you here”
Lol. They were thinking-marks.
I think that if causality is completely tied up with time, then I believe in an eternal-past and future universe. It’s probably more that space-time is completely tied up with causality. Looking up the Guth etc. theorum I also found this interesting, it’s short and well worth watching to see what space-time can do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfeJhzPq3jQ
This……….I don’t even know…….I would love to ask Guth “what does the universe which contains the bubble, exist in?”

But it gets worse. You have to remember that space-time – general relativity – is only a model, and this is mainly why I don’t consider that beginning-of-the-universe cosmology is much to count on. We can’t even explain why galaxies don’t fly apart – we can’t find the dark matter, if it even exists, and yet people are making claims about the entire universe, which we understand even less. Physicists have no trouble with the idea of eternal-future, and it would not surprise me if eternal-past became evidenced at some point either. But on this topic, and about the confirmation bias. I do think that if the evidence arose that the universe might be eternal-past that some christians would start to use the whole genesis-’bara’ thing as evidence that the bible is right again! It is in exactly this way that I think that the confirmation bias is at play with religion. People base their arguments and evidence and epistemologies upon what they want to believe. This exlplains so much about religions.

Say, could you provide a link to your article on creation ex-nihilo. I don’t know that much about the genesis-’bara’ thing.

Thomas, in my previous comment I showed exactly how Scripture recommends that scoffers and false teachers be, in your words, “abused and insulted”, and I have provided several actual examples of this happening in the Bible.

I don’t understand why you don’t understand why I’m trying to defend my view. I’m trying to defend it because I believe it is scriptural. It doesn’t seem like you’re really considering my words. Indeed, it seems like you just can’t believe it is possible there are times when Christians are justified in not being “nice”—in being “mean”.

Hi Peterpieman

What I should have said is that it has always seemed obvious to me that the universe couldn’t begin to exist because why is the thing that caused the universe to be there, there?

You’ve just repeated the same idea – more an expression of incredulity. But you don’t need an explanation of the cause in order to reasonably believe that something began to exist. If you did you would indeed end up in with an infinite regress and end up knowing nothing. In fact, this principle would destroy the whole project of science. And you didn’t watch the video above did you? This was explained there. 

Physicists don’t seem to call the big bang the end of the story, though,

 
We’ve covered this ground. 

…and I don’t think they’d claim that the cause of the universe needs to be timeless – there can be time outside of time, apparently.

 
Physicist stick to science. Speculation on time beyond the universe is in the realm of metaphysics – clearly the philosophers domain. So when you “…agree that it seems impossible for the cause of our time to be within our time” that is enough to make it reasonable to believe that the cause of the universe is timeless. 

Your base reason for rejecting that the universe had a beginning you explain with this question: “For what does the word beginning even mean without time?” The way I use the word begin is not absent the concept of time altogether. There is subsequent time which is all that is required to imbue the concept with meaning. That the universe began to exist means that it is not eternal in the past: that the sequence of events that led to the present moment is finite. 

On your idea that the evidence for God should be more obvious you reluctantly cede my point that you are in no position to judge if God has sufficient reason for making his existence as obvious as it is. You say, “Yeah, maybe.” But then you say, what about the evidence for astrology and Vishnu? The same reason/excuse could be used. Could astrology really have a reason for making his existence more obvious? This is lacking common sense. And I don’t know of the evidence for Vishnu. Is there some? 

You have just used evidence (the non-obviousness of evidence for the christian god) to bolster your belief in the christian god.

No I didn’t. That God could hide himself for good reasons is a defeater for your claim that the evidence should be more obvious. 

And you have used an epistemology which claims that knowledge of god is not via evidence, as evidence.

Sorry, I’ve been floating between various forums with their various concerns and ideas cross-pollinate. Plantinga counts the personal experience of God as a properly basic belief, so the belief in God doesn’t need evidence for it to be warranted. I count the personal experience of God as evidence, and this evidence warrants belief. Its saying pretty much the same thing. What its not saying is your crude interpretation that I have evidence because the belief in God is not via evidence.

But it gets worse. You have to remember that space-time – general relativity – is only a model, and this is mainly why I don’t consider that beginning-of-the-universe cosmology is much to count on. We can’t even explain why galaxies don’t fly apart – we can’t find the dark matter, if it even exists, and yet people are making claims about the entire universe, which we understand even less.

So you don’t just have a problem with believing the idea that the universe began to exist. You have a problem with believing everything in cosmology. And this because there are some questions yet to be answered? I think you should at least admit, that at the current point, as the field stands, that it is reasonable to believe that the universe began to exist. 

Physicists have no trouble with the idea of eternal-future, and it would not surprise me if eternal-past became evidenced at some point either.

The trouble is that, as every good philosopher should know, that the two eternals you speak of are of a different order. The eternal-future is merely potential. The past-eternal has to be actual. Which is impossible (see the philosophical proofs for the beginning of the universe).

But on this topic, and about the confirmation bias. I do think that if the evidence arose that the universe might be eternal-past that some christians would start to use the whole genesis-’bara’ thing as evidence that the bible is right again! It is in exactly this way that I think that the confirmation bias is at play with religion. People base their arguments and evidence and epistemologies upon what they want to believe. This explains so much about religions.

Not Christianity. For approximately 1900 years Christianity affirmed that the universe began to exist, and this against the tide of popular opinion. It was long considered more reasonable to believe that the universe was eternal. In effect, the problems you are having with the concept of the universe having an beginning are the same problems that have always troubled unbelievers about the Judeo-Christian tradition. (It has always been staunch in this area, and it has only been recently that some have suggested the Bible does not teach creatio ex nihilo.) However, in your case your troubles are a century out of date. Near the beginning of the 20th Century the tide began to turn, and it has continued to rise such that today it is far more reasonable to believe that the universe began to exist than it is to believe that the universe is eternal in the past.

Say, could you provide a link to your article on creation ex-nihilo. I don’t know that much about the genesis-’bara’ thing.

I was referring to this http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2010/09/creatio-ex-nihilo/ which does have some references provided. I think it is Paul Copan and William Lane Craig that have written the book documenting the Christian heritage of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, the theological and biblical exegetical work that heritage is based on, and probably the philosophical grounding as well.

Marc,

I have to confess I am disappointed in your response. I think it most likely that you don’t want to consider what your beliefs would be like were you born into another religion because you really know the answer. Considering this problem this can only bring one closer to objectivity. How could it not? Think about it.

What someone’s beliefs may or may not be if born into another religion is moot. The question is: is it true? It’s that simple.

Also, the latest reply from Peterpieman sounds almost like the Circumstantial Ad Hominem fallacy: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=294637913898907

Stuart,

“You’ve just repeated the same idea – more an expression of incredulity. But you don’t need an explanation of the cause in order to reasonably
believe that something began to exist. If you did you would indeed end
up in with an infinite regress and end up knowing nothing. In fact, this
principle would destroy the whole project of science.”

This is most certainly not merely an expression of incredulity, it is the expression of completely undeviating brute empirical fact. Certainly I agree that all that is needed to show that something began to exist is the knowledge that it didn’t exist at some point and then it did (and this doesn’t even apply to the universe), and that one doesn’t need to know about the cause in order to conclude that. Unfortunately though, it is undeniable that we have never observed a cause that itself does not need an explanation. You won’t be able to come up with an example.
I agree, we do end up with an infinite regress, but you are going to need to show that this destroys science – it does nothing of the sort. Science obviously progresses whether it claims a finite or infinite universe.

“Could astrology really have a reason for making his existence more obvious?”
I don’t understand you. What has astrology got to do with ‘his’. God? Huh?

“And I don’t know of the evidence for Vishnu. Is there some?”
Hindus would say there is. Of course you wouldn’t agree that there is evidence just as they would deny your evidence fort christianity. How would you respond to a Hindu who claims that vishnu has good reason to hide himself? You would respond with skepticism, as I am responding to you!

“Sorry, I’ve been floating between various forums with their various
concerns and ideas cross-pollinate. Plantinga counts the personal
experience of God as a properly basic belief, so the belief in God
doesn’t need evidence for it to be warranted. I count the personal
experience of God as evidence, and this evidence warrants belief. Its
saying pretty much the same thing. What its not saying is your crude
interpretation that I have evidence because the belief in God is not via
evidence.”

So you think that the personal experience of god is both a properly basic belief and has good evidence, yes?

“So you don’t just have a problem with believing the idea that the
universe began to exist. You have a problem with believing everything in
cosmology. And this because there are some questions yet to be
answered? I think you should at least admit, that at the current point,
as the field stands, that it is reasonable to believe that the universe
began to exist.”

Yes I have a problem believing that the universe began to exist (with my current understanding of time) and with many things in cosmology. But honestly and respectfully, I don’t think that you have a very good understanding of the field. I suspect that you just have the views which are convenient to you – those which Craig feeds you – taking the big bang further than do cosmologists, and one particular theorem produced 8 years ago, presumably because it is convenient to his argument. Read this, for example. This is from a HIGHLY RESPECTED COSMOLOGIST, Sean Caroll. Look what he says:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/

You just don’t hear people talking like this in earth science, or genetics, or chemistry. In cosmology, claiming that there is a “current point, as the
field stands, that it is reasonable to believe that the universe began
to exist.” is just plain simplistic. That the universe was much denser in the past, that inflation happened – there is good evidence to think this, but that the universe began to exist is overstepping the mark. As Caroll says “we have no good reasons to believe that those statements are actually true, and some pretty good reasons to doubt them.”

“The trouble is that, as every good philosopher should know, that the two
eternals you speak of are of a different order. The eternal-future is
merely potential. The past-eternal has to be actual. Which is impossible
(see the philosophical proofs for the beginning of the universe)”

And that is why cosmology is such an un-definite field. Is it that the universe began to exist with a cause which violates the notion of ’cause’, or does cause and effect go on infinitely in the past? We have no empirical justification for either, they both seem impossible. Personally I have come to terms with this contradiction. I think that this contradiction is an empirical observation in itself. Welcome to the incredible real world.

Peterpieman,

The principle that you must know the cause of something before you can know it began to exist is not empirical fact, let alone one that is completely undeviating brute empirical fact.
And you don’t need to show something did not exist at some point and then does exist at some later point to know that something began to exist. Look at anything thats been around for more than a little while.
You say, “Unfortunately though, it is undeniable that we have never observed a cause that itself does not need an explanation. You won’t be able to come up with an example.” This is a strength of my argument!

I agree, we do end up with an infinite regress, but you are going to need to show that this destroys science – it does nothing of the sort. Science obviously progresses whether it claims a finite or infinite universe.

This is a misunderstanding. The principle that you must know the cause of something before you can know it began to exist (or the other principle that you need an explanation of the explanation in order for something to be the best explanation) ensures an infinite regress and the collapse of science.
Re astrology: you bought it up. You explain.

Re the evidence for Vishnu: I would say lets discuss it and see if its any good.

So you think that the personal experience of god is both a properly basic belief and has good evidence, yes?

Not quite. “… and is good evidence.” Yeah.

But honestly and respectfully, I don’t think that you have a very good understanding of the field.

Where is your evidence? Tut tut. You shouldn’t believe that otherwise. But honestly Peter, for this argument I don’t need an understanding of the field. I just need to understand Stephen Hawking when he says in A Brief History of Time, that almost everyone today now believes that the universe had a beginning. But thats not all I have, as you are aware. I’m just saying that in itself is sufficient to make it reasonable. Call Stephen Hawkings (or Alexander Vilenkin) simplistic if you must. I think for anyone else that would be a bit hard to swallow.
And I think Carroll is overstepping the mark if he means to say that there is NO good reason and some pretty good reason doubt that the universe began to exist. But I don’t think that is what he is saying. Watch you don’t misquote people. The point of his article is what I have been saying all along: Big Bang cosmology is not a proof of the beginning of the universe – Scientific conclusions will always be tentative – But it is confirmatory of the beginning of the universe.

Is it that the universe began to exist with a cause which violates the notion of ’cause’, or does cause and effect go on infinitely in the past? We have no empirical justification for either, they both seem impossible. Personally I have come to terms with this contradiction. I think that this contradiction is an empirical observation in itself.

Your laboring under the impression that both of these are scientific truths and established by empirical observation. They are not. They belong to the philosophers. Empiricism cannot arbitrate on these matters.

The universe beginning to exist with a cause does not violate the notion of ’cause.’ What does violate the notion of beginning to exist is being without a cause. This is because of one of the strongest and most well established of all metaphysical principles, that from nothing nothing comes. It is this that is continually empirically verified and has never been falsified. This is the real world.

Hi Peter
I apologise if it seemed I was evading your question, it wasn’t my intention. If I’m correct you seem to be inferring that a specified religious belief system is nothing more than the product of a particular geo/sociological conditioning, be it either primary or secondary. To a certain degree I understand where you are trying to go with this line of reasoning. The main objections I would have with it would be so:
1. The social/geographical ‘heredity’ model of religious belief systems cannot adequately explain the phenomenom of non-christians in ‘non-christian’ (in the extreme sense) countries converting to christianity. Or lifelong atheists, from secular families accepting Christ.
2. Simply because a belief system is dominant in a particular location or period of time does not in any way validate its truth claims. You could look to the Communist revolution under the Bolsheviks or The Nazi Party ideology in Europe in WWII; if I was born in those locations at those times would the current ideology be right simply because I was born into it? Of course not. I believe In Christianity because, for me, the evidence points towards it as true.
3.Also the point your making seems to collapse under its own first premise. Are you then conceding that you are only an atheist (im assuming this, apologies if your agnostic but im hedging my bets!) because you live in a secular society, which tends to publicly ridicule religion without any level of sophisticated hearing; and not actually because you don’t believe in God? If social conditioning is the root cause of religious beliefs it can equally be the root cause of atheism, which i guess is still a religious belief if we are going to be honest.
Thanks for your comment. I am always open to listening to the opposing view. And although we do have different viewpoints I appreciate your time.
Marc

Hi Stuart,

I agree that you don’t need to know the cause of something in order to know something began to exist. But there is ALWAYS a cause to explain any ‘something’. It’s quite simple, unless you can come up with an example of something that does not need a cause you are ceding the point. Everything that we have ever observed has had an explanation. That stands (unless you can come up with a counter-example).

“Re the evidence for Vishnu: I would say lets discuss it and see if its any good. ”

Right, so the disciples of Vishnu are not going to be bothered that I can’t see vishnu or his miracles. They will have explanations for why I can’t see him just as you do for your god.

“Where is your evidence? Tut tut.”
I could say this whenever you quote or claim something, but it’s not very helpful is it.

“But honestly Peter, for this argument I don’t need an understanding of
the field.”
I’m afraid you do. It is absolutely true that GR breaks down for a singularity (hint: big bang) and that it is completely at odds with our understanding of the very small (hint: big bang).

“I just need to understand Stephen Hawking when he says in A
Brief History of Time, that almost everyone today now believes that the
universe had a beginning.”
Do you even know when that book was written, Stuart?

“Call Stephen Hawkings (or Alexander Vilenkin) simplistic if you must. I
think for anyone else that would be a bit hard to swallow.”
The thing is that there is plenty of evidence out there to see what these people actually think about their own theories. The funny thing is that they take them less seriously than you do, because they know that there are many ifs and buts.

“Your laboring under the impression that both of these are scientific
truths and established by empirical observation. They are not. They
belong to the philosophers. Empiricism cannot arbitrate on these
matters.
”
By all means, please give an example of what you mean. I cannot see how a philosopher can draw upon anything but observation.

“The universe beginning to exist with a cause does not violate the
notion of ’cause.’ What does violate the notion of beginning to exist is
being without a cause. This is because of one of the strongest and most
well established of all metaphysical principles, that from nothing
nothing comes.”
I’m sorry, you cannot claim the first sentence here until you come up with an example. Again, we have never observed anything at all that does not have a cause.

” It is this that is continually empirically verified and
has never been falsified. This is the real world.”
Like quantum foam? Where does that come from? I think only one of us is looking at the real world!

It is true that an individual brought up in a christian religion is far
more likely to be a christian as an adult, and an individual brought up
as a Muslim, say, is far more likely to be a Muslim as an adult. What do
you think we should conclude from this? That christianity is ‘right’?
Hardly.

I think we should probably conclude that there is little of value in your argument. But perhaps you can explain to me why you think that a “what if” scenario has any bearing on objective truth?

For example, what if… you happened to have been born in Texas and lived and died a staunch Baptist who was absolutely convinced that the Earth was some 6,000 years old? Given that neither you (the real you, not the Texan you) nor I actually believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old I must ask what has your what if scenario actually done to challenge the objective age of the Earth?

Hi Peterpieman, 

Its gratifying to see that you have reversed your position, from “It has always seemed obvious to me that it wouldn’t make sense for the universe – as in, absolutely everything – to begin to exist because, well, what would cause it to begin to exist?” to what you now affirm, “I agree that you don’t need to know the cause of something in order to know something began to exist.” Whats not so gratifying is that you now seem to think that I have to show you a counter-example (“of something that [begins to exist yet] does not need a cause” [brackets mine for context]) or of something that does not need an explanation. But these are things that I already agree with, which you also have come to agree with, and are, by the way, principles that work in favor of two different theistic arguments (namely, the first premise of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument and the first premise of Liebnitz’s Argument from Contingency). 

Where this has come from and where we are is now is quite amusing. You were arguing that the universe beginning to exist (the second premise in the Kalaam cosmological argument) is unknowable by offering the in principle objection above you no longer affirm. I take it now that you have reversed your position, that you think the universe beginning to exist is knowable. If so, and you’d need to clarify that, then the logical arguments for God’s existence such do provide evidence for God’s existence. Accordingly, Dawkin’s central argument as you have construed it ([being] “where the *^#) is the evidence for god? The claim that god exists is extraordinary, but the evidence is anything but.”) is hollow at its core, since there is evidence for God. Also, as Bnonn pointed out, that the claim that God exists is only extraordinary if you already believe that God does not exist, so using this in an argument against God’s existence is obviously circular reasoning. 

Re the evidence for Vishnu, you say “Right, so the disciples of Vishnu are not going to be bothered that I can’t see vishnu or his miracles. They will have explanations for why I can’t see him just as you do for your god.” I don’t know where you got any of this from. I don’t know the evidence for Vishnu. Is there some? Do the disciples of Vishnu offer any? I don’t know the expectation of there being more evidence than there is if Vishnu existed. What I do know, and this was the point if you recall, is that for Christianity there is no expectation that the evidence for God, if God exists, should be more than the amount of evidence there appears to be now. If you’re going to continue with this argument that the supposed lack of evidence for God’s existence is evidence that he does not exist, then the burden of proving that point (that there is expectation of more evidence if God does exist) is placed solidly and squarely on your shoulders. 

Re the field of cosmology: It is acceptable practice for any layman to survey the experts with the relevant expertise to see where the majority stand on the issue in order to conclude that it is reasonable to believe said issue. So I don’t need understanding of the field of cosmology. I just need an understanding that the field is generally united in their belief that the universe began to exist in order for me to conclude that belief is reasonable. And thats what we have. 

That GR breaks down for a singularity is not new news – everyone always knew that. Quantum physics will need to be introduced at the point when space is shrunk to sub-atomic proportions and no one knows how to do that yet. Also, the expansion of the universe is probably not constant, as per the Standard Big Bang Model, but none of these adjustments need effect the fundamental prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist. 

Re Stephen Hawking saying that nearly everyone believes now that the universe, including time itself, began to exist: I’ve looked it up and he said it in 1996 in The Nature of Space and Time with Roger Penrose. Are you claiming that since then there has been a major sea-change in opinion? 

Re “what these people actually think about their own theories.” It sounds like you’ve been hitting up these non-academic, debunking type websites where people quote things without understanding them properly and out of context with the pretense of providing context. What you need to do is read whole papers from trustworthy sources, and then quote what is unequivocal. 

In summary, I’ve spent way too much time going back and forth with you, and I’m still awaiting the demonstration that Dawkin’s central argument is cogent. If you deem to reply, I’m not going respond until you say something new or have made the demonstration clearly. I suppose that would mean you actually watch the video posted above, and come to a proper understanding of what Dawkin’s central argument actually is. Until you offer something substantive and worthy to think on, I don’t want to waste my time on further interaction. Someone else can pick up the tread if they want.

Hi Marc!

I have to say I don’t think that religious belief is ONLY a geo-politico-social thing, but it is largely that. I certainly agree that people convert to christianity, but what about people who convert to other religions, or de-convert? As it happens, christianity is typically the lowest growing religion, and when the world population growth is taken into account, it’s shrinking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups#Trends_in_adherence

I couldn’t agree more that the dominance of a religion in a region does not necessarily validate it’s truth claims. All I am claiming is that a person’s religion is largely determined by the religion that they are born into. This shows that religion has nothing to do with its truth claims. Or if you still think it does, then why is christianity shrinking?

I certainly agree that I am probably only an atheist because I live in the first world. But I was not brought up an atheist, I was brought up in a christian home. I am an atheist not because secular society ridicules religion without sophistication, but because secular society offers [more] freedom, and proper evaluation can only be done from freedom. And being born into christianity limits freedom just as you would claim being born into islam does.

Peterpieman,

I said I wasn’t going to respond but this latest reply to Marc is putting a spin on things that shouldn’t be ignored.
I went to the link you provided and the chart does not confirm your conclusion that Christianity is shrinking. It confirms Christianity grew 1.32% per annum between 2000 and 2005 – quite plainly. When you take the worlds population growth rate into account, Christianity is still growing. What is shrinking is the proportion of adherents of Christianity to the total world population. This puts a much different light on things than the light you shone on it.
Whats interesting to me is that you mention a persons religion is largely determined by a religions birth rate, but fail to mention that Christianity far outstrips any other religion in terms of actual conversions. In other words, that statistics show that more than is that case for any other religion, if you are a Christian you are far more likely to have become one after not being one. You also do not take cognizance of the fact that counting percentage growth will tend to favour smaller religions, while counting actual numbers will tend to favour larger religions.
But all this all has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of Christianity, or any other religion or (non-religious category) for that matter.
A helpful reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion

Hi Peter
 you make some very valid points worthy of consideration. I don’t neccessarily believe that the points support your views however. You have basically restated one of my initial points, the ‘heriditary’ or ‘social conditioning’ model of belief cannot adequately explain people converting to other religions or atheism. In fact this whole line of reasoning stands refuted by your own experience, despite being brought up in a Christian environment you were not conditioned to believe and after your own consideration rejected Christianity as false. The same is true for the atheist who comes to believe Christianity is true.
In that light the notion that religion has nothing to do with truth claims is not something I would not hold to be true. In fact to me, that statement betrays a train of thought I cant quite understand. Religion, including atheism is completely envoloped in its truth claims otherwise we are all indulging in pointless mythology. The Bible even makes this clear; if Christianity were false then we should be pitied for being so foolish. All truths cant be true no matter how much we all hope our individual truth is. Thankfully we are all free to evaluate the arguments and evidence on offer and decide where we believe the truth rests. In my reasoning, the evidence from multiple disciplines points to Christianity being true.

Stuart,

Unfortunately you have misunderstood my position.

I stated: “I agree that you don’t need to know the cause of something in order to know something began to exist.”

This statement most certainly does not say that something can be causeless. It merely states….what it states. Just because we don’t NEED TO KNOW the cause of something in order to know that something began to exist, does NOT mean that that something can be causeless.

So I am stating that there has never been anything observed that doesn’t have a cause. To conclude that, suddenly, the universe can violate this is bad reasoning.

I have no objection to the universe beginning to exist any more than I have an objection to the idea that I(me) began to exist. However the idea that the universe began to exist with NO CAUSE is as ridiculous as the idea that I began to exist with NO CAUSE.

” If you’re going to continue with this argument that the supposed lack
of evidence for God’s existence is evidence that he does not exist, then
the burden of proving that point (that there is expectation of more
evidence if God does exist) is placed solidly and squarely on your
shoulders. ”
I think that the main position of Dawkins and most atheists is “Where the heck is god? I don’t see him.” If there is good evidence out there, then it is up to you to show it. Unfortunately the only evidence that people ever come up with is completely subjective. And the idea that god has good reason to hide is no respectable standard of evidence, it is what all religious and quack-y claims are based upon.

You’re right we are getting nowhere. I would suggest that you do some reading about current cosmology.

“including time itself, began to exist”
I also can’t help but notice that if it were convenient to you you would be all over this statement. You would mock it. How can time begin to exist? How can time apply to time? But, of course, it is not convenient to your argument and so you ignore it. This just goes to prove my point that logic is almost useless. Far more important is choosing how, when and where to use it. You chose it with the end of christianity in mind.

Hi Peterpieman,

I find your latest response quite concessionary. You are affirming that the universe has a cause, that you have no problem with the universe beginning to exist, nothing without a cause has ever been observed, and that it is ridiculous to think that something can begin to exist without a cause. On all of these, I wholeheartedly agree, and its surprising indeed that you should be so negative towards the theistic arguments.

I think that the main position of Dawkins and most atheists is “Where the heck is god? I don’t see him.”

No. I think that main position of Dawkins is that that God almost certainly does not exist. This is the conclusion of his central argument. An argument you have yet to demonstrate is cogent.
I agree with you that it is up for me to show that there is good evidence for God – because I make the positive claim that God exists. Using the same rules, because you make the positive claim that all the evidence that people ever come up with us completely subjective, you have to show it. But again, you have merely asserted this. An assertion made all the more remarkable in the face of what you are willing to concede. Take the Kalaam Cosmological Argument for instance. You strongly endorse the first premise, as well as the conclusion. You hesitate on agreeing with the second premise for some reason, but clearly agree that the answer to this (the beginning of the universe) is not a matter of mere subjective opinion. So your assertion is fatally flawed. Worse, I’m pretty sure you would agree at this point with all the premises of the Contingency Argument for God’s existence.

And the idea that god has a good reason to hide is no respectable standard of evidence, it is what all religious and quack-y claims are based upon

This is quite sad that you would continue in this error. I have explained it you before. I’ll do so again for good measure.
I’m working with the evidence I can show you (specifically as an example the Kalaam Cosmological Argument). You claim its not enough because what evidence there is is all subjective and God should have given better. Firstly, as I’ve just done above, I’ve shown that you yourself don’t believe the evidence is all subjective. Second, I also gave the counterargument that God may have a good reason for making his existence just as obvious as it is (i.e. not more, not less). Effectively, I’m disagreeing with your claim that God should have made his existence more obvious than he has by suggesting he may have good reason not to. I’m asking you to prove the claim you have made by showing that God should have given better evidence of his existence. This being your claim It is your burden to show that God does not have a good reason to make the evidence of his existence more obvious than what it is.
Re time beginning to exist: I don’t know why you think its a problem for me. (I agree with it on the basis of science which has discovered that time is a physical dimension not unlike space, and not discounting – as you do – Steven Hawking and Roger Penrose’s strong endorsement on the state scholarly opinion on this.) I think its a problem for the atheist, since if time came into being with the universe than the cause of time must have the property of timelessness. It sounds like you continue to think that it is nonsensical to say that something begins to exist or is caused to exist without there being a prior time. But I’ve covered this ground already. All you need for the notion to be coherent is a simultaneous and subsequent time. And thats what we have for the beginning of the universe.

Stuart,

Yes christianity is growing, but that is kind of a meaningless statement when all (of the major) religions are growing. A more accurate reading would be to state that christianity is declining as a percentage of the world’s population. What matters to the topic at hand that Marc and I were discussing is the RelativE growth of christianity, because Marc brought up the conversion of people to christianity.

I don’t know where you get your fact about christianity outstripping other religions in “actual conversions”. I’m not denying it, I just don’t know where you get it from.

The first sentence of you link says “Most increase in the population of any religious denomination is simply due to births.”
How are people supposed to know whether they have been born into the correct religion given that their thinking about religion is so coloured by their upbringing?

Hi Marc,

No I completely agree with you that social conditioning and upbringing cannot explain conversions in any direction. That is why I brought up statistics. If christianity was the only True religion I would expect that people who ‘wake up’ from their conditioning and get the opportunity to look around objectively would, of course, choose christianity since it is the only True religion. This is not obviously the case, however.

I see what you mean about my story being contrary to the conditioning thing. Firstly, I was conditioned to christianity until I matured and left home. What I was trying to say in my last post, though, is that the best decisions are made when we are Free. Freedom of information, freedom from social groups, freedom from family. These freedoms are highest in Western society I think, and it is in these societies that there is the highest prevalence of non-religiousness. You may disagree, of course, maybe you think that modern Western society is not the most free, but I can’t see that argument having much evidence.

I agree with you that religion is not competely removed from its truth claims, and atheism is not completely removed from conditioning. The question is, which worldview is the most removed from conditioning. I think that the trend in modern society shows which is.

Peterpieman,

I don’t know where you get your fact about christianity outstripping other religions in “actual conversions”. I’m not denying it, I just don’t know where you get it from.

I got the information from the wikipedia link I provided, which got the information from the 2005 Encyclopædia Britannica. The 1.38% growth rate you gave was taken from the 1990-2000 version of the World Christian Database.

How are people supposed to know whether they have been born into the correct religion given that their thinking about religion is so coloured by their upbringing?

Try to assess the arguments and evidence each provide as fairly as possible. Be open to the possibility you are wrong. Avoid logical fallacies. Steer clear of irrelevancies like appeals to the chances of being born in another religion, social conditioning, freedom of religion in the west. Something you might want to try.

Stuart,

Sorry for the late reply.

“I find your latest response quite concessionary. You are affirming…..negative towards the theistic arguments”

Hmmmn! I strongly suggest that the universe has a cause, by induction. Sorry to say it again and again but everything that we have ever observed has a cause, so it would be aberrant to claim that the universe does not.

There is the problem, though, that I have only just realized explicitly, that if the universe does have a cause, then that cause cannot be outside of the universe by definition! And there is the old problem that that cause must also have a cause which must have a cause….. I am quite comfortable with this/these contradictions because…..well, because they are the state of the matter.
(A little later you talk of how I agree with much of the Kalam argument – I hope you can see from the above that this is not to be)

“No. I think that main position of Dawkins is that that God almost
certainly does not exist. This is the conclusion of his central
argument. An argument you have yet to demonstrate is cogent.”

Okay, sure. And I think that using an epistemology where evidence has to be objective, this is the case. And the case that evidence has to be objective can be made from examining what evidence looks like in areas where we know that we have been led down the wrong path.

“I agree with you that it is up for me to show that there is good
evidence for God – because I make the positive claim that God exists.
Using the same rules, because you make the positive claim that all the
evidence that people ever come up with us completely subjective, you
have to show it. But again, you have merely asserted this”

The problem here is that any evidence that is convincing to you that proves that god exists is going to fall short of what I demand. And what I demand is quite simple: objectivity. And any evidence that I come up with to show that your evidence is subjective you are going to disagree with. However, your demands are quite complex: you are only going to accept your ancient texts and your religions claims to miracles, and your axiomatic assumptions.

“I’m asking you to prove the claim you have made by showing that God should have given better evidence of his existence.”
If I believe that god has reasons for remaining hidden, then I am completely exposed to believing the subjective claims of any religion. Particularly one in which I was born into:

“Steer clear of irrelevancies like appeals to the chances of being born
in another religion, social conditioning, freedom of religion in the
west.”

I think that you have not come to terms with reality Staurt. Denying that people are largely conditioned by the religion and culture into which they are born and brought up is just a flat denial of reality. In fact, I’ll bet that you DO believe that people are conditioned into religions, just not yours. Ha!