> God gives us these mysteries to find and discover
> truths in our own quests to know Him more.
>
> So if these prima facie contradictions weren't in
> your sacred scrolls, you would say "the Bible is really great, but to be
> perfect it just needs a handful of prima facie contradictions so that we'd
> have some mysteries to help us in our quests"?
clearly i would not do this. it is silly to propose
such a question because the bible clearly contains
these 'prima facie contraditions'.
You earlier said these "mysteries" were deliberately added to the Bible for our benefit. Now you admit that if they weren't there, you wouldn't consider their addition to be a good idea. So were they a good idea, or are you just saying that in their absence you wouldn't have recognized how good an idea they were?
i could reverse the question to you, if the bible had none of these
'prima facie contradictions' would you then believe
the bible was 100% true and accurate?
I already describe in my writings what it would take to make me believe the gospel message.
i see not the relevance of such a question. it detracts from the debate.
The debate is over whether an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent deity would give us precisely the Bible as revelation. If you are unwilling to defend that thesis, then you simply aren't engaging my arguments against Christianity.
i'm a person who believes that solving problems or
answering questions is best accomplished by getting to
the root of issues. i explained to you that debating
evidence is useless when we begin with
100% contradicting assumptions.
You've identified no such "contradicting assumptions". Instead, you've just said that you'd rather defend theism than Christianity. Given your unwillingness below to consider the space of possible explanations for the gospel evidence, I'm retracting my offer to debate theism/supernaturalism. There is already an extensive philosophical literature attacking and defending theism, so discussing it with you won't teach me anything. By contrast, there seems to be no literature defending Christianity from the alternative supernatural explanations I've identified. I'm willing to grant for the purposes of this argument that supernatural beings exist, so you can't complain that we need to debate theism/supernaturalism first.
> I made an argument that they are irrelevant.
>
how is finding a logical coherence in a supposed
contradiction irrelevant? i am answering your charge
that there is a contradiction by pointing you to an
elegant scholarly solution.
You gave no substantial answer to my argument that a tri-omni deity would not leave a revelation whose prima facie contradictions would require strained "scholarly solutions". All you said was that it was good that God put such "mysteries" in the Bible so that we can "find and discover truths in our own quests to know Him more". If you think that qualifies as an answer to my argument, then I'm happy to let the record stand as it is.
instead of evaluating the evidence, you hold to the 'it's a contradiction, your bible is messed up' charge.
Instead of answering my argument about what a tri-omni deity would do, you dodge the issue by pointing to a strained "scholarly solution", and make no argument why a tri-omni god would prefer it.
i believe it not wise to debate christianity with atheists.
It depends on the atheist. In the case of this atheist, you're right. :-)
forgive me if i am
incorrect in this, but i was under the impression that
atheists believe there is no god.
Believing no gods exists is different from believing gods are not possible.
i believe that atheists have to first see that there
might be a God before debating christianity is
possible.
I already admit there might be gods and demons: http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/GospelProbabilities.html
i am not making a claim that my belief [in ID] is
unfalsifiable.
A belief is unfalsifiable only if the possible evidence that could falsify it can be identified.
> The evidence and arguments are in fact so strong
> that neutral reference
> texts (and many Christians) consider it a closed
> matter. That's why I don't
> debate ID, just as I don't debate the flatness of
> the Earth.
why do you insert this statement about debating the
flatness of the earth? it is not relevant,
It's relevant because some people still cling to the belief that the Earth is flat. I don't bother debating them.
and in fact is a poor example to illustrate your point. flatness
of the earth was in its time accepted by all as the
scientific truth.
If the consensus on evolution ever gets overturned, you'll look prescient and I'll look ignorant -- just as I will if the flatness of the Earth is ever proved. I'm willing to take both of these risks.
incidentally, the id argument is mostly what got Flew
to renounce his atheism.
Flew has become a deist but not a theist, and certainly not a Christian.
i still think if you ask 100 atheists what their
beliefs are based on, over 90 will say
science/evolution. but that's not important, your
version of atheism is your own, (as it should be) so i
will accept (for the purposes of our discussion) that
evolution/science is equally fundamental to the
atheist belief system as proof that the book of mormon
is fraudulent.
I didn't say they were equally fundamental. I merely pointed out that if belief X (e.g. ID, or Mormonism, or experiencing the Holy Spirit) is inconsistent with atheism, then you can't necessarily say that atheism "is based on" believing not-X.
Flew is an intellectual through
and through. i raised him as an example because he
would seem to be among the very least likely to change
to theism since you propose the atheist arguments are
so strong. Flew was one of the strongest atheists and
very famous. again, he's one of the authors of the
articles you link to that argue against the design
argument.
Don't hold your breath hoping that Flew's confusion is going to overturn the consensus against ID.
i have my own understandings on why people change from
christian to atheist. [..] in most cases it's not
because the atheist arguments are so logically strong.
I never said otherwise. My interest is in the very tiny fraction of atheists and Christians who are familiar with the arguments for and against Christianity. Aside from citing Flew (who did not even convert to Christianity), you haven't addressed this topic at all.
usually the atheist arguments are embraced because
they help the person get where they want to go.
atheist beliefs tend to help people feel smarter,
better about themselves.
http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Pride.html
this is a bunch of possibilities you dreamed up and
assigned arbritrary numbers to. it's not an argument
for anything at all. it may be quantified but it
carries no weight in a debate. i could easily assign
any numbers i wanted and we could get blue in the
fingers typing about why our possibilities are more
correct. it would accomplish nothing.
You're either seriously interested in an open-minded discussion of the space of possible explanations, or you're not. Thank you for clearly stating your interests.
i see not why
you find it such a compelling argument.
I've never said it's an argument. It's simply a statement of my position. However, the unwillingness of Christians to state a counter-position is a good meta-argument for the thesis that they are not open-minded about the question, and therefore their beliefs might not be adequately rational.
i've read parts of your website, and
i could propose that you originally questioned your
faith when you were younger because of its effect
(lack thereof) on your life.
The effects of my belief on my life are clearly described, as are the reasons why I developed doubts, at http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/MyConversion.htm.
then decided to go on
the offensive and nurture this questioning with as
much as you could find to attack it and now it's gone.
It's not about attacking faith. It's about seeking truth.
[one other note about christianity too, is that it's
extremely personal. why do i have faith in the bible,
and Jesus and God? it's all in how He has affected my
life. it's really quite amazing.]i have not allowed such bias to enter my thoughts
when debating with you, so i ask that you afford me
the same courtesy.
When you invoke without prompting the "amazing" and "extremely personal" way that your faith has affected your life, it's only natural to wonder if your factual conclusions have been influenced by the personal fringe benefits that you admit are derived from believing in those conclusions.
now that i've responded to everything in your previous
response,
No, you didn't answer my correction of your charge that my position on the theism debate is what decides my position on the Christianity debate. More importantly, you haven't even begun to address the material I told you I would most like to see answered:
You continue:
1. are you an atheist or an agnostic? (if atheist, try
to give me some sort of statement of beliefs? explain
what your atheism is?)
http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#Theology
2. i have not claimed that christian/atheist arguments
are equal in logic. i have claimed that
atheist/theist arguments are equal in logic. (atheist
is logically equal at best...)
You say "logic", but you mean something closer to epistemic justification.
atheism is opposed to
all other religions in the world. atheism is on one
side, and all others would fall in the category of
theism.
Almost all religions in the world are opposed to each other. Atheism agrees with each of these religions that the gods of all the other religions do not exist. Every religionist disbelieves in most of the gods that humans have ever believed in. Atheists just go one god further.
i do not see how the logical arguments for
atheism are better than those for theism.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/arguments.html
personally i find atheism illogical and foolish.
I find theism to be epistemically unjustified. And I find it foolish to call either theism or atheism foolish.
why is atheism more logical than theism?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/arguments.html