Logic

Originally posted by sonship
All I can do as you raise objections to the Christian experience then is show you why what is a problem to you is not or has not been a problem for me.

I don't promise anymore than that, if we ever converse again.

That sounds reasonable.

As I recall those days, I think I always believed that there was SOMETHING as a grand answer - a Force, a impersonal Oversoul, a Vibration, maybe just a huge Question Mark somewhere. Seriously.
In my case, I do not.

I am mistaken about a lot of things.
About Jesus being risen and Lord of all?
No mistake.
I do not doubt you are telling the truth (ie you believe what you say here). But should you not equally accept that when I say I do not doubt that there is no god, then I too am sure of myself? Why do you see me as closed minded, but not see it in yourself?

Okay. You certainly have a right to that opinion.
My point was, that some topics on this forum do not have to result in one of us renouncing his religion. If I for example am arguing that quantum mechanics does not rule out the possibility of particles spontaneously appearing in space, then it doesn't mean that conceding this to be so is equivalent to giving up your faith. Similarly, if you can convince me that we have souls that are separate from the body then I do not need to renounce my atheism to conceede that it is the case. So you don't need to assume that every discussion is about putting everything on the line. Sometimes there are things that we can learn from each other without it having to result in a religious conversion.

Originally posted by sonship
Tell me where you think the Universe came from ?
Your position on that IS ... ?

I do not know. I do not even have an inkling. Logic tells me there are two possibilities, either time started at the big bang, or there was something that preceded it. I have listened to speculation about big bounces, multiverses, etc, but honestly I don't know enough physics to say whether any of these are reasonable.
I am not being secretive, I genuinely have no idea. I do think that whatever the explanation it does not involve God or some other intelligent entity. So for example I give no credit whatsoever to the idea that we are living in the matrix.

Originally posted by sonship
Which words of the New Testament do you think were genuinely spoken by Jesus and which were latter fabrications put into the mouth of Jesus fictitiously ?

Take say the fifth through eight chapter of the book of Matthew.
Which ones do you regard as authentic ?

Your position is .... ?

I am not certain whether a historical figure named Jesus actually existed. I have heard good arguments either way, none of which were conclusive. I believe most of the New Testament accounts of Jesus' life are made up. I have no doubt whatsoever that the early parts of Jesus' childhood were made up for theological reasons. I am less sure about things like the crucifiction. It is quite possible that parts of that are based on passed down information. But the various speeches of Jesus? I would say most likely all made up.
I also do not believe there is any writing in the Bible by anyone who actually met Jesus. (here I am obviously talking about prior to his death, not people who believed they saw his spirit etc).

Originally posted by sonship
What are you more concerned with, the process of good debating or learning where truth lies ?

Overall, I am more concerned with learning where truth lies. Having said that, I don't see why it is evident that you have something to teach Craig about the process of good debating techniques.

Are you a professional debater ?
Craig makes his l ...[text shortened]... r knowledge of the technique of debating has anyone ever paid you to come and debate something ?

GF is right; you didn't quite get what I said. I have actually been complimenting Craig on his debating technique. I am not at all saying that I'm better than him at it. Quite the opposite, actually.

Personally, I am more interested in finding the truth. [I am also not good at supporting arguments that I don't personally find compelling. Which is what good debaters can do.]

Originally posted by twhitehead
I completely disagree. I think Dawkins is quite articulate and does a good job in most debates I have seen him in. I have not been impressed by WL Craig at all. For the debates I have seen him in, he was the clear looser - mostly because he didn't seem to believe the arguments he was making. He might do better if he stuck to his beliefs, rather than trying to justify his beliefs with arguments that simply cannot stand up.

People often disagree on who won debates, so I don't find it important that people agree with me on who won. Also, I understand that some viewers won't separate the debating technique itself from the arguments themselves as much as I might. That's fine.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
People often disagree on who won debates, so I don't find it important that people agree with me on who won.

Yes, I agree. We may even disagree about what constitutes 'good debating technique'. For me, if someone comes across as not believing their own arguments, it spoils the whole debate. I notice this especially when I have watched republicans discuss politics. They clearly don't believe half the things that come out of their mouths, it seems to be a cultural thing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not certain whether a historical figure named Jesus actually existed. I have heard good arguments either way, none of which were conclusive. I believe most of the New Testament accounts of Jesus' life are made up. I have no doubt whatsoever that the early parts of Jesus' childhood were made up for theological reasons. I am less sure about things like ...[text shortened]... am obviously talking about prior to his death, not people who believed they saw his spirit etc).

So Sonship, do you accept that TWhitehead has honestly and clearly answered your three questions (I think his second answer addresses your second and third questions)?

You said:

But you conceal positions and attempt to play an entirely defensive posture by placing entire burden of proof on the opponent. And then you constantly attempt to portray any argument as not being familiar with what you really believe.

No position or a hidden position or an obscure one or a position undecided upon, is the easiest to defend.

Has TWhitehead 'concealed his position here'? Is he placing an unfair burden of proof on you? Is his position hidden, or obscure, or undecided upon?

--- Penguin

Originally posted by sonship
Your position on this. To what do you attribute the information of Paul which states the his audience ( the Corinthian church ) knew that about 500 people had seen the resurrected Jesus at one time, of which most of were still alive to be consulted on that ?

I have not really thought about this much before, so my opinion is being formed as we speak, ie I did not hold an opinion prior to this post. My opinion may also change should different information be made available to me.
1. I do not believe Paul counted out (or even estimated) 500 people, so that figure is clearly and exaggeration or made up.
2. Did he make it up completely? I don't know. There were obviously Christians who believed Jesus had existed at the time of Paul, but whether Paul met any people that claimed to have met the resurrected Jesus, I do not know.

Delusion on Paul's part ?
I am fairly sure that Paul had various hallucinations, probably similar to what many Christians and members of other religions experience today. These are often a combination of actual experiences, hallucinations, and memories that get modified after the fact. But on this particular point, no, I don't think it was hallucination.

Latter fabrication added to the letter of First Corinthians ?
This I doubt. I think that most of Pauls writings are probably mostly accurate copies of what he wrote, although I believe some things attributed to him may not have been written by him, but I am no expert on the matter.

Mass hallucination ?
No. I do not believe there were in fact 500 people claiming to have seen the resurrected Jesus.

Deliberate lying to fool the reader of the letter into believing such was the case ?
Yes and no. I often see theists on this forum deliberately lying to support their faith. But they do have genuine faith. Sometimes the lies are a case of 'it might be true, so I am not really telling a lie, I am just sounding more confident than I really am' and that sort of thing.

I must also note that as far as I am aware, I had never read that verse before. I am not a Bible scholar, have not read the whole Bible, and have not read much of it at all since I was a child and was forced to read bits in Religious Education in school. Most of my knowledge of the Bible comes from having grown up in a religious family and attending Church services.

Originally posted by sonship

And this is not the first time I have made this offer to answer your questions, and you never take me up on it. Instead, you wait a week or two, then repeat the lie.

Okay. Let's give it a try.

If you are so positive that you have put to bed that God does not exist and that atheism is obviously the truth then -

Tell me where you think the Universe came from ?
Your position on that IS ... ?

The problem with this question is that Science does have an answer. In Physics' cosmology the universe started off as a quantum fluctuation. It exists because there is no particular reason it shouldn't. As I understand the mainstream Christian position they accept the big bang theory, but have God causing the big bang. So the difference in the two narratives is that in the one case it is God's plan and in the other case it just happened because it isn't hard for universes to pop into existence. This is what one would expect; if God exists and is omnipotent and there is some sort of faith test then the ability to detect God's existence undermines the faith test and therefore God's omnipotence. So you shouldn't be able to determine by scientific means whether God exists or not.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The problem with this question is that Science does have an answer. In Physics' cosmology the universe started off as a quantum fluctuation. It exists because there is no particular reason it shouldn't. As I understand the mainstream Christian position they accept the big bang theory, but have God causing the big bang. So the difference in the two na ...[text shortened]... nipotence. So you shouldn't be able to determine by scientific means whether God exists or not.

You lost me there. Where did the link between omnipotence and faith come from?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
You lost me there. Where did the link between omnipotence and faith come from?

If there is a faith test, then God must hide. If God has failed to hide, he is not omnipotent. At least thats what I think he is saying.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If there is a faith test, then God must hide. If God has failed to hide, he is not omnipotent. At least thats what I think he is saying.

OK, that may be the point. I'm not quite sure I agree with it; it seems like no one defines 'faith' in that way - a way that totally rules out scientific evidence.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
OK, that may be the point. I'm not quite sure I agree with it; it seems like no one defines 'faith' in that way - a way that totally rules out scientific evidence.

I think there is a range of opinion on the matter. I think Suzianne would be the most extreme opinion that I know of on this matter, in that I think she would rule out scientific evidence as it would be contrary to the teaching of faith being a requirement.
Most other people seem to have a bit of a contradiction in that they think faith is required, but simultaneously believe they themselves have rational, reasons for their beliefs. This issue is also related to the concept that everyone who does not have faith has in some way chosen not to, or rejected the option of faith - but whether or not that choice or rejection was done with full knowledge tends to have a wide range of opinion from those who think we are all secret Christians, to those that accept the existence of atheism.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
OK, that may be the point. I'm not quite sure I agree with it; it seems like no one defines 'faith' in that way - a way that totally rules out scientific evidence.

Ambrose Bierce defines it along those lines in his satirical book "The Devil's Dictionary."

"Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

The bible defines faith along these lines:

Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Which I think could be read as faith IS evidence. This is why presenting evidence/logic/arguments against theism sometimes falls on deaf ears, because some theists already believe the issue has been proved in their favor (by the evidence of faith).

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
OK, that may be the point. I'm not quite sure I agree with it; it seems like no one defines 'faith' in that way - a way that totally rules out scientific evidence.

How did you get that from what he just said?