Autumn Reading for Jerry and friends

_{Vincent Torley

October 20, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Japanese maple leaves.

Over at Why Evolution is True, Professor Jerry Coyne has been busy at work. He has not only outlined a scenario that would convince him of God’s existence, but he has written an article entitled On P. Z. Myers on evidence for a god with a point-by-point rebuttal of P. Z. Myers’ assertion (backed up by eight supporting arguments) that there was no amount of evidence that could convince him of the existence of any kind of God. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, so I would like to congratulate Professor Coyne. Let me hasten to add that Professor Coyne is still a convinced atheist. As he writes: “To me, the proper stance is, ‘I haven’t seen a smidgen of evidence for God, so I don’t think he exists. But I suppose it’s a theoretical possibility.'” In the final paragraph of his post, Coyne declares: “I’m writing this post simply to continue a conversation that I don’t think has yet run its course…”

Well, Professor, I’m something of a magpie. I collect good articles. The 200 or so articles I’ve listed below are the “creme-de-la-creme” so to speak, of what’s available on the Web. Taken together, they make a strong cumulative case, on philosophical and empirical grounds, that God does indeed exist, and that the benefits of religion vastly outweigh the multitude of harms inflicted in its name. (There’s even a case where an amputee gets healed! Curious? Thought you might be.) I’ve also included some good articles on God, morality and evil, which will interest you. The arguments for the immateriality of the mind are also significant: they serve to undermine the materialist argument that there can never be a good argument for the existence of an immaterial Intelligence, since all the minds we know of are embodied and complex. Interested? Please read on.

Table of Contents

Section 1 – Philosophical Arguments for God’s existence
Section 2 – Miracles
Section 3 – The Attributes of God
Section 4 – God, Morality, Goodness and Evil
Section 5 – Arguments for the Immateriality of the Mind
Section 6 – Mysteries of the Christian Faith (The Trinity, the Incarnation and the Atonement)
Section 7 – Religion: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

For the list of articles, click here.

Enjoy!

Comments

ONLOOKERS: Observe the persistent evasion when atheist advocates were asked to warrant their claims on the conclusion of atheism, and on the rejection of the cumulative cases for generic theism and Judaeo-Christian theism specifically. That is telling, and it is sadly fitting that it be the epitaph for this thread. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 8, 2010
November
11
Nov
8
08
2010
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

PPS: on yet another objection, Jesus' mother (and appar. his aunt too -- her sister it seems -- BTW) stood at the foot of the cross, with his best friend and cousin to whom he committed the care of his mother just before he breathed his last. There is no reasonable question as to who was on that cross.kairosfocus_{November 7, 2010
November
11
Nov
7
07
2010
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

PS: In 247 above, I cited Lk 24, which recounts the way in which the core 20 or so principal, identifiable witnesses came to objectively know that Jesus was risen. Recall, Luke -- a demonstrated habitually and finely accurate historical writer consciously writing a history -- had motive, means and opportunity to discuss with witnesses 57 - 59 AD, in the general context of a Roman legal case. (BTW, if you have been tempted to think that the post resurrection accounts are hopelessly incoherent, as say Bishop Spong et al have been fond of claiming, cf here as a start.)kairosfocus_{November 7, 2010
November
11
Nov
7
07
2010
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

FYI F/N 2: On knowing when a crucified man is dead; in response to a hyperskeptical remark above. [Cf. 219.] Ultimately, crucifixion -- if no major blood vessels are cut by the nails (and appar. there were cases of bribery make sure of that: bleed-out in minutes, a relative mercy) -- caused death by exhaustion leading to inability to stand the pain required to push up and breathe. So, if a victim was sagging and not pushing up for long enough, he was dead. No need to have more than common sense to see that. And, in this case all heard the death-cry. And, to make sure, a spear was thrust into the heart-lung region. John's amazed note on "blood and water" coming out bespeaks separation of blood, i.e. inadvertent confirmation of death. (The other men crucified with him were still pushing up to breathe, so they broke their legs, imposing death in minutes.) Jesus was not "allegedly" dead, he was obviously so. And that would have been plain to a veteran soldier like a Centurion would have been. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 7, 2010
November
11
Nov
7
07
2010
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

F/N: Food for thought from Wm Lane Craig, especially for those who think arguing for specific objective truths regarding God -- beyond true for me, true for you subjectivism -- is intolerant, arrogant, judgemental or even racist. (HT: Wintery Knight.) Astonishing how many seemingly appealing claims are self-referentially incoherent. Notice, too, how easily radically relativist "tolerance" becomes extremely intolerant, hostility-promoting and corrosive of serious, mutually respectful dialogue. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 7, 2010
November
11
Nov
7
07
2010
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Onlookers (and M): For convenience, from 207: 8 –> Expanding briefly:
a: Worldviews are not subject of deductive proof, as they address matters of fact, so they will be warranted on a cumulative case basis. b: Such an argument works analogously to a rope: thin, short individual fibres are twisted together to make a strand, and several strands are braided or counter-twisted together to form a much longer, stronger rope that depends on the mutual support of the components for its overall strength. c: In short it is a relevant instance of the fallacy of composition to assume or infer that by attacking individual components, one can dispose of a worldview case. d: Instead, one has to embark on the comparative difficulties process across live options, including addressing factual adequacy, coherence, and explanatory power; where, e: something like the resurrection of Jesus in the context of prophecies, if well warranted as fact [and we have argued in the linked that it is] becomes one of the credible facts that has to be accounted for. f: In that context, we may effectively argue that the observed cosmos is credibly contingent [cf Big Bang], as well as its constituents, which warrants the conclusion that it requires a cause. g: At the root of that chain of cause is a necessary being, with sufficient power and skill to build a cosmos that sits at a fine-tuned operating point that facilitates C-chemistry, cell based life, even through multiverse suggestions [the sub-cosmos bread factory issue . . . what sort of supercosmic bread factory is needed to bake up a rich variety of sub-cosmi instead of the equivalent of a doughy half baked mess of ill-blended ingredients, or a blackened hockey puck of burned ingredients] h: Similarly, such a necessary being is either possible or impossible, but plainly it is not impossible: there is no self-contradiction, and indeed the above warrants that it is necessary as the ground of the contingent world we can see. So arguably the force of necessity acts: there is such a necessary being with the relevant attributes to account for a cosmos and for life including ourselves as minded, conscious, enconscienced creatures. i: That necessary being is implicated by the evident design of life and cosmos, and has the attributes necessary to account for such design: extracosmic, intelligent, very powerful, purposeful, acting as creator. These are of course features of the being we describe as God. j: Going further, as morally bound creatures — something atheists inadvertently acknowledge when they assume the repugnance of evil in mistakenly trying to argue from evil to atheism — a moral universe implies that the ground of its being is an IS that has in it inherent goodness sufficient to ground OUGHT. That is God is moral and specifically good. k: To cap off, starting with the 500+ eyewitnesses of C1, and continuing down to today, millions have personally come to meet and know the Living God in the face of the risen Christ. (And if you are offended by Christian particularism, I suggest you look here as a start.)
9 –> You of course claimed that there is a rich literature in critique of such a cumulative case. What you need to show to us is that that rich literature succeeds, not in showing what was never at issue — that it is possible to reject such arguments by challenging premises and dismissing facts — but that on comparative difficulties, your atheism is a superior conclusion, including in the implications of alternative premises to the rejected ones. 10 –> In particular, do not forget that if the human mind is so delusional that the millions across time who claim to have met and been transformed by God are deluded, then on what alternative grounds can you trust your mind not to be deluded when it arrives at atheistical, evolutionary materialistic conclusions? _________________ M, can you show that on a level playing field comparative difficulties basis, the "concl[usion]" of atheism is a superior view? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 7, 2010
November
11
Nov
7
07
2010
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

CY: Quite correct. Sad really, but also inadvertently revealing. BA: Thanks. Calc is of course a rough estimate, but a few orders one way or the other make little difference. M: Still waiting. Maybe, a question will help: do the theistic arguments have a bit more bite than is commonly admitted, once we set them in the more proper context of a worldview level cumulative, inference to best explanation case? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 7, 2010
November
11
Nov
7
07
2010
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

kf here is the 1 in 10^60 fine tuning for mass-density ('grain of sand') reference: Evidence for Belief in God - Rich Deem Excerpt: Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html My Beloved One - Inspirational Christian Song - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200171 Math for 'grain of sand' is worked out here: https://uncommondescent.com/education/belief-in-evolution-no-longer-a-metric-for-science-literacy-at-nsb-nsf-yay/#comment-352314bornagain77_{November 6, 2010
November
11
Nov
6
06
2010
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

"Belief is when you suspend critical thinking because you want, so much, for something to be true. That’s not very grown up, is it?" Who ever said this had to have suspended their own critical thinking. :)CannuckianYankee_{November 6, 2010
November
11
Nov
6
06
2010
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

PS: Given the significance and inescapable presence of unprovables at the heart of any worldview of consequence, and at the heart of reasoning itself, this is in a sense the most chillingly revealing on superficiality, dismissive superciliousness and selective hyperskepticism of all:
Belief is when you suspend critical thinking because you want, so much, for something to be true. That’s not very grown up, is it?
kairosfocus_{November 6, 2010
November
11
Nov
6
06
2010
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

F/n Wintery Knight has a survey of atheist views here. Interesting reading, Sampler: _____________________ >>Question 4: What are your main objections to God’s existence and knowability? * I have nothing against religious belief. I don’t feel that I need it to cope with or explore life. * All religions are all man-made * All religions are the same * Religions all have the same goal, to make people act morally * Religions all have the same goal, to make civilization survive * Belief is when you suspend critical thinking because you want, so much, for something to be true. That’s not very grown up, is it? * Evolution shows that a Creator and Designer aren’t needed to explain life * The world operates according to natural laws. Even if Creator God, no obvious mechanism how this Creator can communicate with people. * Progress of science, naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena * The hiddenness of God * There is too much moral evil and suffering in the world * The suffering in the world makes me wonder whether God is good, even if he existed * I don’t a reason why God would allow certain instances of suffering * The plurality of religions, and the way your religion is set by where you were born * God is unknowable because he is non-material, eternal, etc. * I don’t find the scientific arguments from the big bang and fine-tuning arguments convincing because science changes all the time * I don’t to drop my own personal moral standard and purpose and exchange it for anyone’s else’s * As long as people are good, then then they should not be punished in Hell for an eternity * Biblical contradictions * Bible outdated * I don’t like the idea of Hell * Religion is not testable * There is no empirical evidence * Canonization was done by the victors at Nicea * Religious believers are not significantly more moral than non-believers Question 5: What is the ontology of moral values and moral duties? [Individual relativism: 8] [Cultural relativism: 2] [Objective: 0] * Subjective. The standard varies by each individual. What we ought to do is whatever we want to do. * Subjective/Cultural. The standard varies by each culture’s evolved social conventions. What we ought to do is to do whatever the majority of the people are doing in the society we live in. Morality is like driving/traffic laws, just do what is right for where you live * Subjective. Abstract values can only exist in brain states of individual people * Subjective. They reflect properties of the mind. They can be codified as law and custom. * Subjective. Moral values are ideas that get passed from person to person. * Subjective/Cultural. They don’t exist. What does exist is a social contract that we make with each other so that we might have a better life. * Subjective. Morality exists in our minds and, given what we know about our animal cousins, likely evolved in us as a means to ensure group cooperation and safety. * Subjective. Moral and ethical values appear to be properties of minds (which are themselves physical entities with complicated causal explanations). Question 6: Does your worldview ground free will, which is required for consciousness, rationality, moral judgments, moral choices and moral responsibility? [NO: 8] [YES: 0] * There isn’t any * I don’t know * No good evidence for free will, and people do what they do because of genes and environment. Still, to the extent that we can change our environment, it’s worthwhile to create an environment that deters atrocities. * There is no free will. * I do not think the concept of “free will” is logically coherent. * I don’t think that there is such a thing as free will – not in the sense that you mean anyway. . . . . Question 9: Could you condemn slavery in a society where it was accepted, on rational grounds? [NO: 10] [YES: 0] * No. I do not believe in praise and blame and judging others. I would not try to persuade them for fear of repercussions, up to and including my death at their hands * I would not because slavery is the custom of that society. Each society has different customs, and slavery is their custom. If I moved there, I would not oppose it because I would get used to it * Would use evidence that all people are basically similar neurologically, and ask slaveowners to empathize with enslaved. Might work with Thomas Jefferson. * I don’t know * No but I personally oppose suffering * I can oppose slavery by merely opposing slavery. True, moral subjectivism does not provide an objective basis for deciding the question of slavery, in and of itself. * If I traveled back into time then it would be me who traveled. So I would oppose slavery. If I were born into that time period, it would be different. * I would argue that people deserve the right to be free from slavery because I think that’s a good idea. * I wouldn’t “use” atheism as it doesn’t come with any particular tenets or morals or behavioral requirements. * I would oppose slavery because I would *want* to, not because I think there’s some extrinsic reason I ought to. Question 10: Is there ultimate significance for acting morally or not? I.e. – does it affect your or anyone else’s destination if you act morally or not? [NO: 10] [YES: 0] * There is no ultimate significance * Acting morally makes life easier * Too long after I’m dead for me to care about. * It always matters to maximize my happiness now. I don’t care what happens in 20 billion years. * There’s a preceding question that hardly ever gets asked. “Is there a meaning to life?” I don’t think there is. Question 11: Is there an objective purpose to life, (or does each person decide for themselves)? [NO: 10] [YES: 0] * Mine is to feel good about myself and to feel respected by others. * Mine is to enjoy it. I’d hope that I go about it in a way that doesn’t interfere with others enjoyment and that when it does we can compromise. * Mine is to relieve inordinate suffering, while leaving room for constructive suffering that lead to creativity and progress. Based on empathy. * Mine is to help the species survive by having lots of children, because that lasts after you die * Each person decides for themselves. My purpose is to have happy feelings * My purpose is to have happy feelings by doing what most of the other people are doing and avoiding social disapproval * I have no “objective” purpose. I do what I can to be happy, all things considered. * To live as contented as possible. To find answers to big questions. To prepare my children for adulthood. I chose these things because that’s what I like. I don’t care what another’s purpose is as long as they don’t harm anyone. * My purpose is to seek happiness while doing no harm (or as little harm as is it may be possible to do) for as long as I’m alive. Of course it’s just my own purpose – I can’t presume to choose another’s purpose. That being said, I do presume everyone has more or less the same goal of happiness and fulfillment, but the precise methods of going about it are always going to vary from person to person. * I want to be happy. I generally like other people, and I want them to be happy too. Question 12: Would you follow (and how would you follow) Jesus at the point where it became clear to you that Christianity was true? [NO: 7] [YES: 2] * I have no idea * I would not follow. My own goals are all that I have, and all that I would continue to have in that unlikely situation. I would not yield my autonomy to anyone no matter what their authority to command me * I would not follow, because God doesn’t want humans to act any particular way, and he doesn’t care what we do * I would not follow. Head is spinning. Would go to physician to find out if hallucinating. * If I found there was no trickery? I’d have to change my mind wouldn’t I! Not really likely though is it? * I would keep doing what I am doing now, acting morally. That’s what all religions want anyway. (In response to my triumphant scribbling, he realized he had fallen into a trap and changed his answer to the right answer) Oh, wait. I would try to try to find out what Jesus wanted and then try to do that. * I hope I would be courageous enough to dedicate my life to rebellion against God. * I would not have to change anything unless forced to and all that would change is my actions not my values. I would certainly balk at someone trying to force me to change my behavior as would you if you were at the mercy of a moral objectivist who felt that all moral goodness is codified in the Koran. * He would have to convince me that what he wants for me is what I want for me.>> ____________________ Unscientific of course, but unfortunately quite typical of a great many experiences of similar discussions or arguments. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 6, 2010
November
11
Nov
6
06
2010
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

PS: Don't forget: think just how embarrassing all of this is to the very core leaders of the C1 church, the 12 themselves, here less 2. Full of doubts, dismissing accounts from those who had already seen Jesus as old wives' hysterical tales, mistaking their risen Lord for a duppy [is this Caribbean dialect term sufficiently shocking to make the point hit home?], having to be coaxed to touch him, and feed him [remember ANE hospitality rules], having to be instructed again on the prophecies they should by now be connecting to the chain of events. Such are quite serious admissions against interest and would have been ammunition aplenty for supplanting leadership. Save: the principal NT era qualification to be a lead missionary was: eyewitness to the risen Christ.kairosfocus_{November 6, 2010
November
11
Nov
6
06
2010
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

CY: I am actually giving what seems to be GH's full list of 12, with my parenthetical comments. In debates they usually have limited time and focus on 3 or 4 - 6. (Cf discussion in my note on selective hyperskepticism as linked several times above, here.) It should be plain that the C1 NT era believers accepted the resurrection and that their preaching was premised on it as can be seen from Ac 2. This holds even if this is taken as a Herodotus or Thucydides style composite representational speech not a recall-based summary of a pivotal speech at a crucial moment in history, with thousands of witnesses. Witnesses that Luke would have had some access to in 57 - 59 AD during Paul's visit to the Holy Land, imprisonment and trials. As I just submitted over at Confident Christianity, the recent attempt to wrench Paul's term "spiritual body" into more or less ghost, is utterly at odds with the record, e.g.:
Read this, from a tested and reliable historian with access to the eyewitnesses, giving what is a plainly embarrassing account: they think they see a ghost, they doubt the resurrection they are in context thinking of old wive's fables, and Jesus had to give them a physical demonstration, on multiple levels, and at he end they were in a state of "mi caa'nt believe it," i.e. amazement. Was this man -- or were his sources -- lying, on what grounds? Let us see:
Lk 24:36 While they [the 12 less 2 plus Cleopas and companion, etc] were still talking about this [the incident on the walk to Emmaus], Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost [pneuma -- spirit] does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” 40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. [think about how many levels of collective hallucination would have to be involved here, and then contrast what we know about hallucinations, or "visions" if you will -- and remember the tomb was empty and the guards were spending freely and telling a crazy story about the tomb being robbed by the disciples while said guards slept [oh, sure . . . you know what happens while you are sleeping, and if you crack an eye you are afraid to take on a bunch of ill-armed civilians burdened with a corpse] who were hiding behind locked doors, while they slept . . . ] 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” [I.e. claims to be fulfilling the Messianic tradition and prophecies of the OT, e.g. 700 BC Isa 52:13 - 53:12]
This report credibly dates to 57 - 59 AD, and to a circle of witnesses [cf Lk 1:1 - 4]. The document's subsequent external attestation begins 95 - 6 AD in Clement's letters to Corinth. A comparison with Ac 2:16 - 41 will abundantly confirm that he C1 teaching is indeed strongly focussed on the resurrection in this hebraic context. (Remember, this is the age of carefully collected bones stored in ossuaries to set the stage for the resurrection of the body,the bones being the last part tangibly preserved. Didn't they find Caiaphas' ossuary some years back?) What was new in Christianity was not resurrection but WHEN it happened as a pioneer and promise of the end of days, exactly as Paul takes pains to address in 1 Cor 15. So, when I see attempts to make out that the C1 church's message was not based on a robust and justified -- yea even well warranted, but justified will do for the argument -- belief that the apostles and other core witnesses were eyewitnesses to resurrection in the bodily sense, I conclude that selective hyperskepticism has gone amok. (In short I take the minimal facts and argue for further credible facts too. Then the challenge opens up: what best explains the credible facts?) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 6, 2010
November
11
Nov
6
06
2010
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

KF, Habermas and Licona concentrate on the 5 facts which are undisputed by even most skeptical scholars. However, your 12 facts seem to be in line with their 5. In other words, they're broken down to more detail from the 5 with the exception of facts 6-10. However these facts concern the efficacy of belief, which a skeptic would obviously deny; which I find quite revealing. The typical skeptic does not believe that the force or power of the resurrection accounts to the believer is a factor, but it clearly is.CannuckianYankee_{November 6, 2010
November
11
Nov
6
06
2010
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

F/n 2: Following up Stenger (in absence of M's positive case for his "concluded" atheism) in his free thinker seminar just a bit more is further illuminating, though not happily so: _________________ >>T: Philosopher William Lane Craig has argued that the universe had a beginning, therefore it must have had a cause. That cause is God. A: Quantum events can happen without cause. Perhaps our universe was a quantum event in a larger universe that always was. T: You have no evidence for this. A: You have no evidence against it. Current physics and cosmology allow for such a scenario . . . . T: Where did the order of the universe come from? A: It could have been produced spontaneously by natural processes of a type that are now beginning to be understood in physics. One such process is called "spontaneous symmetry breaking." It's like the formation of a snowflake. T: Still, the second law of thermodynamics says that disorder, or entropy, must increase with time. It must have started out more orderly than it is now, as created by God. A: An expanding universe allows increasing room for order to form. The universe could have started as a tiny black hole with maximum entropy, produced by a quantum fluctuation, and then exploded in the big bang. T: You can't prove that. No one was there to see it. A: You can't disprove it. Such a scenario is allowed by current scientific knowledge.>> __________________ a --> The issue is not whether WLC said something,k but that in fact both in observation and on first principles of right reason, that which is contingent is caused. b --> The quantum events are uncaused canard neatly glides over the basic point that causal factors come in several forms -- e.g. contributory, sustaining, necessary, sufficient, necessary and sufficient -- and that a truly acausal event or effect would have to come from nowhere or anywhere, anytime, with no constraints, leading to a chaos not a cosmos. c --> The very existence of physics as a reliable science is eloquent testimony that events and effects are NOT acausal, inclduing quantum ones. (Think about how a population of radioactive atoms shows a definite decay constant and a consistent pattern of decay with a stable half-life.) d --> Next VS ducks the point that without observational evidence and without being there to observe, one is actually indulging in metaphysical speculation, not true science. Materialistic metaphysics is metaphysics and needs to come to a level playing field discussion of comparative difficulties across all reasonable alternatives. e --> The issue is not that the universe is ordered, but that it sits at a finely tuned operating point that enables C-chemistry cell based life, on many dozens of parameters. So, even through the usual multiverse speculations, we face the question: how did the cosmos bread-making factory get set up that it does this. And a credible candidate explanation is that the observed cosmos is the work of an intelligent and powerful deeply knowledgeable designer. f --> The notion that the observed universe started from amximum entropy then transformed itself to a position of an extremely finely balanced operating point through a fluctuation is either an appeal to miraculous luck [a materialistic miracle] or else to a multiverse set up as cosmos-bakery. g --> Remember, the fineness of the balance is such that (as BA is fond of noting) it seems that one grain of sand more or less would have tipped the cosmos away from being C-chemistry cell based life permitting. h --> So, as BA suggests, go outside tonight, look up at the stars, then take up one grain of sand, and put it next to your computer monitor as a reminder of just how finely balanced our cosmos is for you to be here thinking about it. _______________ In short, what is happening is that the underlying unacknowledged, imposed question-begging evolutionary materialistic premise is driving the conclusions that are here being pushed under the false colours of science. (One may wish to have a look here and here to see a 101 level survey of an alternative view, note the embedded video series.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 6, 2010
November
11
Nov
6
06
2010
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

F/N to Onlookers: Similarly, when one takes a comparative difficulties look at the theistic arguments case, on fair comment, the balance is a lot different than what one would get if one simply tired to reject key premises piecemeal and drew the concousio0n that one needs pay no attention to anything but a deductive proof from premises acceptable to all. For, the aggregate worldview level commitment to reject a cumulative case such as the following [coming from 207] places one on a very sticky comparative difficulties wicket. In short, generic theism and Judaeo-Christian theism are a lot more credible as worldview options than many are wont to acknowledge. And the old theistic arguments, in a suitably modern cumulative case form, pack more punch than many objectors acknowledge: _______________ >>8 –> Expanding briefly:
a: Worldviews are not subject of deductive proof, as they address matters of fact, so they will be warranted on a cumulative case basis. b: Such an argument works analogously to a rope: thin, short individual fibres are twisted together to make a strand, and several strands are braided or counter-twisted together to form a much longer, stronger rope that depends on the mutual support of the components for its overall strength. c: In short it is a relevant instance of the fallacy of composition to assume or infer that by attacking individual components, one can dispose of a worldview case. d: Instead, one has to embark on the comparative difficulties process across live options, including addressing factual adequacy, coherence, and explanatory power; where, e: something like the resurrection of Jesus in the context of prophecies, if well warranted as fact [and we have argued in the linked that it is] becomes one of the credible facts that has to be accounted for. f: In that context, we may effectively argue that the observed cosmos is credibly contingent [cf Big Bang], as well as its constituents, which warrants the conclusion that it requires a cause. g: At the root of that chain of cause is a necessary being, with sufficient power and skill to build a cosmos that sits at a fine-tuned operating point that facilitates C-chemistry, cell based life, even through multiverse suggestions [the sub-cosmos bread factory issue . . . what sort of supercosmic bread factory is needed to bake up a rich variety of sub-cosmi instead of the equivalent of a doughy half baked mess of ill-blended ingredients, or a blackened hockey puck of burned ingredients] h: Similarly, such a necessary being is either possible or impossible, but plainly it is not impossible: there is no self-contradiction, and indeed the above warrants that it is necessary as the ground of the contingent world we can see. So arguably the force of necessity acts: there is such a necessary being with the relevant attributes to account for a cosmos and for life including ourselves as minded, conscious, enconscienced creatures. i: That necessary being is implicated by the evident design of life and cosmos, and has the attributes necessary to account for such design: extracosmic, intelligent, very powerful, purposeful, acting as creator. These are of course features of the being we describe as God. j: Going further, as morally bound creatures — something atheists inadvertently acknowledge when they assume the repugnance of evil in mistakenly trying to argue from evil to atheism — a moral universe implies that the ground of its being is an IS that has in it inherent goodness sufficient to ground OUGHT. That is God is moral and specifically good. k: To cap off, starting with the 500+ eyewitnesses of C1, and continuing down to today, millions have personally come to meet and know the Living God in the face of the risen Christ. (And if you are offended by Christian particularism, I suggest you look here as a start.)
9 –> You of course claimed that there is a rich literature in critique of such a cumulative case. What you need to show to us is that that rich literature succeeds, not in showing what was never at issue — that it is possible to reject such arguments by challenging premises and dismissing facts — but that on comparative difficulties, your atheism is a superior conclusion, including in the implications of alternative premises to the rejected ones. 10 –> In particular, do not forget that if the human mind is so delusional that the millions across time who claim to have met and been transformed by God are deluded, then on what alternative grounds can you trust your mind not to be deluded when it arrives at atheistical, evolutionary materialistic conclusions? >> ________________ So, now, it seems there is a considerable amount of Autumn reading and thinking for skeptics -- especially those of evolutionary materialistic stripe -- to do. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 6, 2010
November
11
Nov
6
06
2010
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

CH: Re 238: Did a man named Jesus exist and walk the Earth? Noted Canadian NT scholar Craig Evans, in the 2004 Benthal public lecture at U of Calgary, observed: _______________ >>My purpose tonight is to lay before you what I believe are key facets in the scholarly discussion of the historical Jesus. In my view there are five important areas of investigation and in all five there has been significant progress in recent years. I shall frame these areas as questions. They include (1) the question of the ethnic, religious, and social location of Jesus; (2) the question of the aims and mission of Jesus; (3) the question of Jesus’ self-understanding; (4) the question of Jesus’ death; and (5) the question of Jesus’ resurrection. All of these questions directly bear on the relevance of Jesus for Christian faith and some of them have important implications for Jewish- Christian relations . . . . The story told in the New Testament Gospels—in contrast to the greatly embellished versions found in the Gospel of Peter and other writings— smacks of verisimilitude. The women went to the tomb to mourn privately and to perform duties fully in step with Jewish burial customs. They expected to find the body of Jesus; ideas of resurrection were the last thing on their minds. The careful attention given the temporary tomb is exactly what we should expect. Pious fiction—like that seen in the Gospel of Peter— would emphasize other things. Archaeology can neither prove nor disprove the resurrection, but it can and has shed important light on the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ death, burial, and missing corpse . . . . Research in the historical Jesus has taken several positive steps in recent years. Archaeology, remarkable literary discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and progress in reassessing the social, economic, and political setting of first-century Palestine have been major factors. Notwithstanding the eccentricities and skepticism of the Jesus Seminar [the original raw transcript was pungent!], the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood, and to view the historical Jesus in terms much closer to Christianity’s traditional understanding, i.e., as proclaimer of God’s rule, as understanding himself as the Lord’s anointed, and, indeed, as God’s own son, destined to rule Israel. But this does not mean that the historical Jesus that has begun to emerge in recent years is simply a throwback to the traditional portrait. The picture of Jesus that has emerged is more finely nuanced, more obviously Jewish, and in some ways more unpredictable than ever. The last word on the subject has not been written and probably never will be. Ongoing discovery and further investigation will likely force us to make further revisions as we read and read again the old Gospel stories and try to come to grips with the life of this remarkable Galilean Jew.>> _______________ In short, after nigh on 200 years of extreme and unwarranted hyperskepticism, the balance of scholarship backed by archaeological discoveries has come around to the acceptance of the fundamental historicity of the Gospels as primary sources, and has underscored their C1 hebraic context. It has also underscored the contrast between the gospels and the recent wave of Gnostic texts from C2 on, that were recently promoted as though they were of comparable worth as primary sources. In that context, Christian thinkers addressing challenges tothe factual basis for the gospel as summarised in the AD 55 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, have emphasised up to twelve so-called minimal facts that have to be accounted for by any serious explanation of the roots of the Christian Faith:
1. Jesus [by implication accepted as an historical figure recoverable in material part from the record] died by crucifixion. 2. He was buried. 3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope. 4. The tomb was empty (the most contested) [and if it were not, why then didn't the authorities simply go to the right tomb and display the corpse? why the record of a bribe to spread the story of a raid by the disheartened disciples?]. 5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof). 6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers. 7. The resurrection was the central [authenticating] message [of the gospel, cf. Ac 2:16 - 41]. 8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem [cf. ditto]. 9. The Church was born and grew [cf. Ac 1 - 12]. 10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship. 11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic). 12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
When one does an inference to best explanation analysis of the various alternative reconstructions, it soon becomes very evident that the authenticity of the NT record as primary sources is firmly grounded, and the skeptical alternatives -- once anti-supernaturalist prejudice is not allowed to beg the question -- simply cannot stand up to the minimal facts that are credible. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 6, 2010
November
11
Nov
6
06
2010
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

CY: "For an adherent to worldview X to say that other worldview truth claims are false merely by their incompatibility with X is to make a universal negative truth claim. Such is not the case. X makes a universal positive truth claim, and as such, what is incompatible with it can be said to not be true on the strength of the evidence in support of that claim." “For an adherent to worldview Y to say that other worldview truth claims are false merely by their incompatibility with Y is to make a universal negative truth claim. Such is not the case. Y makes a universal positive truth claim, and as such, what is incompatible with it can be said to not be true on the strength of the evidence in support of that claim.” All you are doing here is change the semantics from the earlier term "warranted evidence" to "universal positive truth claim". Although you are obviously grounding this "universal positive truth claim" in "warranted evidence". So this changes nothing. All you have to do now is tell me how you determine the validity of a universal positive truth claim Y, when "It [is] unnecessary to consider the claims of Y" is the central premise of your argument.molch_{November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

PPPS: And then along come the design theorists a decade or two later and begin to take away the nice neat evolutionary materialistic science that says, we can explain everything without need for cosmic designers. P4s: Closely followed by the Minimal fact defenders of the historicity of the resurrection described in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11 . . .kairosfocus_{November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

PPS: Onlookers, observe the silent impact of Plantinga's devastation of the former keystone atheistical argument: that on the reality of evil, the concept of God becomes self-contradictory so we need not consider it further. That is why current atheists have moved to ever softer forms of their claim, as they know that absent that sort of formerly claimed self-contradiction in the concept of God, it is a pretty hard row to hoe to claim that a finite, fallible, mostly ignorant creature like we are, confidently knows enough to assert beyond fear of error, that there is no God.kairosfocus_{November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

F/N: A universal negative claim is of form that there is no X. A single counter instance suffices to break it, unless it can be shown positively that X is impossible (especially by reductio ad absurdum on the implications of the law of non-contradiction. [I suspect, BTW, many of Molch's troubles trace to trouble with that law.]). That BTW, is one good reason why worldview analysis should start form first principles of right reason. the chop away a lot of luxuriant foliage and clear up the vistas. GEM of TKI PS: Molch, still waiting . . .kairosfocus_{November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

molch, Did a man named Jesus exist and walk the Earth? Can we start talking about actualities about what you agree or disagree with about the historical Jesus?Clive Hayden_{November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

molch, "your lengthy post in 223 is very telling: you are presenting very detailed arguments for the truth of Jesus’ resurrection. You want me to present my arguments for rejecting them. Only if I can do that, you claim, can I be a 'true atheist'.": Yes, in a way. First let's distinguish what I mean by "true atheist." What I mean by this is a person who can say "there is no god or gods," or "there probably or possibly is no god or gods" and be logically consistent. First of all, I don't believe there are many atheists who categorically state "There is no god or gods." While I have met some who say this, it is doubtful they have thought through the problem with such a statement. I would say that most atheists who have thought through this, view their beliefs as "weak atheism" as opposed to "strong atheism." In other words, the "weak atheist" would state more like "There is possibly or probably no god or gods." Now in order to make such a statement and be logically consistent would necessitate some evidence that there possibly or probably is no god or gods. And such evidence would obviously imply a lack of or an absence of meaningful evidence for the existence of a god or gods. It seems to me that in order to be coherent in such a position, one should have to deal with the claims that there is a god or gods, which purport to have evidence for such a god or gods - not only the claims of Christianity, but also the claims of all other theistic religions. You're charging that Christianity must also do this, but your charge is simply begging the question of God's existence. If God exists and He is the God of the Christian scriptures, and He has provided sufficient evidence for such a belief, then there really isn't a need to go any further. You may disagree with this, and you are certainly entitled to, but I believe the sufficient evidence is there. That's what this thread is about, and VJT posted plenty of the evidence and arguments for why this is so. However, if I charge that there possibly or probably is no god, I would certainly want to know if that were true or not by considering the claims of those who say there is a god or gods, and who claim to have evidence for such a claim. So the issue here is this: It is the atheist who really needs to look into all the other truth claims regarding God's existence in order to remain coherent and not beg questions, since to not do so, would be to avoid possible evidence. The Christian theist has already dealt with the question of God's existence, and found a coherent foundation in the Judeo-Christian scriptures and in other evidential factors. It then becomes unnecessary - however valuable, to consider the claims of all the other religions, which make claims about the existence of god or gods, or the non-existence of god or gods. The question has already been sufficiently answered in the positive and by sufficient evidence. On the other hand, Christians have considered the claims of other religions, and Christians have given sufficient reasons for not accepting many of those competing claims. Christianity has also considered the claims of atheism, and as I have already pointed out, the arguments for the existence of God address many of those claims. So Christianity is not a faith that doesn't consider other truth claims. Other truth claims do not need to be considered, however to maintain coherently faith in the Christ of Christianity. Obviously the atheist does not need to look into Christianity's arguments to come to belief in God - such can be done and has been done merely by inference - by concluding that what looks designed in nature is in fact designed, or through a thorough understanding of the cosmological argument, or through many other means. But in order to maintain a position of atheism, one would need to rule out the claims of Christianity and all other theistic claims, because one is making a claim of a universal negative - and it remains a negative no matter how weakly one makes the claim - (i.e., "there is no, probably is no, or possibly is no god or gods). One can remain an atheist without looking into any of the claims of theism, but one cannot maintain such a belief coherently and without question begging. Now you charge also that for a Christian to say that other religious truth claims are false merely by their incompatibility with scripture is to make a universal negative truth claim. Such is not the case. Christianity makes a universal positive truth claim, and as such, what is incompatible with it can be said to not be true on the strength of the evidence in support of that claim. So it isn't a universal negative truth claim, but as KF pointed out, it's an issue of comparative difficulties.CannuckianYankee_{November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

---molch: "No. I haven’t. Why does nobody read what I am actually saying?" I have read what you say, which is why I followed up with a number of questions that you didn't answer. ---"But I have a feeling that I’m not going to get an answer to this question either." The problem is that you have been asking too many questions and answering too few. If you would just try responding to some of them, you would be well on the road to understanding many of your faulty assumptions. Those questions were asked for a reason. …"is still, and absolutely, and categorically, wrong." [atheism has no rational foundation] There you go again. You tell us that atheism has a rational foundation, but when we ask you to tell us what it is, you act as if the question was never asked. ---"MY worldview assumptions don’t matter here in the least!!!!" ---"The world-view assumptions and EVIDENCES of reincarnationist X matter!" Your world view determines how you interpret that evidence. I interpret evidence in light of the first principles of right reason. It is only fair, then, to ask this question yet again: Through what principles do you interpret evidence? ---"And you have absolutely NO GROUNDS, none whatsoever, to claim that reincarnationist X CANNOT have just as many, or more, and better, evidence for reincarnation than you have for the resurrection of one man 2000 years ago!" I can, indeed, make that claim based on a reasonable interpretation of the facts in evidence and on the historical record. On the other hand, you are not in a position to make that judgment because you do not know the arguments in favor of the resurrection. Here are just three out of a hundred questions that I could ask you on points that you have never considered. Why did the Pharisees bribe Roman Guards to say that the apostles carried away Christ's body? If they believed their own story, why did they not demand to know where the body was taken? Who moved the stone? I could also ask you to explain, in the absence of an omniscient Christian God, how hundreds of prophecies contained in the Old Testament could manifest themselves as historical events in the New Testament. Yet you, blissfully unaware of these and countless other points, tell us that you have considered all the evidence for a Christian God and found it wanting. Sorry, I for one am not buying your story. ---"The ONLY statement I want you to justify or retract is this: “With atheism there is no solid foundation. With Christian theism there is.” What would I want to retract an obvious fact that is easy to verify. If you don't agree, why don't you explain atheism's solid rational foundation. It is not as if you have never been asked. ---"does not get you ANY closer to justifying a universal negative!!!" You really need to drop that term because you are using it inappropriately. A double negative applies mainly when making assumptions about things that may exist that we do not know about. There are no major world religions that we do not know about, so please stop indulging in irrelevant semantic quibbles and answer some of the questions that have been put to you.StephenB_{November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Molch: F/N, re:
in order to determine that adherent of worldview X DOES NOT stand on a solid foundation, you would actually have to look at the claims and arguments of worldview X. But you just said that you DON’T have to look at them. You can’t have it both ways.
Nope. There is an effective infinity of possible worldviews, so the point you just made would knock out your own "concluded" atheism too. What is necessary to reasonable ground a worldview choice beyond question begging, is reasonable assessment on comparative difficulties and on positive claims, on key facts, questions and issues, in light of self-evident first principles of right reason. (And, remember here CY is apparently a former atheist himself, so he has plainly been doing some of that.) So, for instance, once we have in hand a reasonable cluster of basic, warranted, credible truths, we can have high confidence that if a particular worldview cuts across them, so much the worse for he worldview. (For instance, radical relativism on knowledge is absurd as it boils down tot he claim to know there is no possibility of knowing. Radical relativism on morals and/or amorality are dismissible once one recognises that we are inescapably bound by moral principle . . . as even atheists imply when they try to appeal to the repugnance of evil. And if a worldview asserts, assumes or implies that the mind is not credible as a means to confident positive knowledge -- which the above cite is perilously close to -- then it is itself exposed as absurd. Implications for evolutionary materialistic views are NOT coincidental.) Similarly, if one has met and has actually come to know God in the face of Christ, who has authenticated his claim to Deity by breaking the bars of death [with 500+ witnesses] then he is entirely entitled to take the following remarks by Jesus quite seriously:
Jn 3: 10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[e] 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
On the strength of that, one has a reasonable presumption that if some particular claim or teaching radically cuts across or denies that credibly known starting point then it will most likely be false. Of course, one may actually examine it in some level of detail, as being reasonable is not incompatible with believing that one confidently knows some true things. Similarly, on looking at the worldview level grounds for generic theism on a basic warrant on comparative difficulties of alternative major premises [not least, in light of basic warranted, credible truths that may not be fashionable today but nonetheless are just that: well warranted and credibly true -- often, on pain of absurdity], one may have good grounds for being confident of theism. And, one is then in a perfectly reasonable position to say that my confident knowledge is not hostage to your skepticism. But, then, that point has been repeatedly made above, and has never been confuted, just ignored. GEM of TKI PS: Still waiting . . .kairosfocus_{November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

"As I stated above, laying claim to something is not warranting something." Yeah, and assuming that something is not warranted is not warranting that it is not warranted.molch_{November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

"I’ve already justified it." Oh yeah? Wow - I must have missed the part where you showed that each single one of the HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS or MILLIONS of non-Christian truth claims are not warranted.molch_{November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

molch, me: “Could there be another possibility to explain the sighting of a man that looks and behaves just like an allegedly dead man?” “Yes. There could be.” molch: "Thanks for admitting that much." It's not an issue of my "admitting that much." On any proposition one is obligated to allow all reasonable possibilities until more specifics are known. In this case there could be other explanations, and as I have already gone through, there are specifics that are know, which can and do rule out the other possibilities you suggest. Your first assumption here is false. Jesus wasn't an "allegedly dead man." He was dead, and none of the evidence should lead one to suggest that he did not die from the crucifixion. And this is the position of most scholarly skeptics; that Jesus died from the crucifixion, and that was the end of it. me: “the witness of prophecy, the witness of history, and the testimony of changed lives” molch: "If you think that your world-view is the only one that lays claim to these categories of witnesses, you know even less about other world-views than I thought." I don't think that, and laying claim to something is not warranting something. "Reincarnationist X is going to tell you something quite like that. And adherent of worldview 1A is going to tell you something quite like that. And adherent of worldview 2A, and, and , and,…." I fail to see how this is at all relevant. As I stated above, laying claim to something is not warranting something. "That’s why this statement of yours: 'With atheism there is no solid foundation. With Christian theism there is.' …is still, and absolutely, and categorically, wrong." I base this statement on my "conclusion" based on evidence that God exists, and that He is in fact the God of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. It therefore is not absolutely and categorically wrong apart from your ability to show that the God of the Judeo-Christian scriptures does not exist. That's the bottom line here. All these issues regarding reincarnation and reincarnationist X are completely irrelevant, while your world-view would seem to be completely relevant. "The ONLY statement I want you to justify or retract is this: 'With atheism there is no solid foundation. With Christian theism there is.' This statement is claiming a UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE." I've already justified it.CannuckianYankee_{November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

CY: your lengthy post in 223 is very telling: you are presenting very detailed arguments for the truth of Jesus' resurrection. You want me to present my arguments for rejecting them. Only if I can do that, you claim, can I be a "true atheist". Adherent to worldview X can do the exact same thing to you. He can be presenting you with detailed arguments for worldview X. He can ask you to present your arguments for rejecting them. Only if you can do that, can you be a "true anti-X". But no, you say: "A person can have a solid foundation for belief in Christ without one bit of consideration of other competing claims, and I stand on that foundation." Here is your problem (as I have repeated for the umpteenth time): adherent of worldview X ay the exact same thing: "A person can have a solid foundation for belief in X without one bit of consideration of other competing claims, and I stand on that foundation." You have no grounds to say he is wrong. Because in order to determine that adherent of worldview X DOES NOT stand on a solid foundation, you would actually have to look at the claims and arguments of worldview X. But you just said that you DON'T have to look at them. You can't have it both ways.molch_{November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Molch: Let's take this from the top, from 207 (and you are again twisting CY's words into pretzels, BTW). Note, the below is a positive case, on inference to best explanation: __________________ >> 8 –> Expanding briefly:
a: Worldviews are not subject of deductive proof, as they address matters of fact, so they will be warranted on a cumulative case basis. b: Such an argument works analogously to a rope: thin, short individual fibres are twisted together to make a strand, and several strands are braided or counter-twisted together to form a much longer, stronger rope that depends on the mutual support of the components for its overall strength. c: In short it is a relevant instance of the fallacy of composition to assume or infer that by attacking individual components, one can dispose of a worldview case. d: Instead, one has to embark on the comparative difficulties process across live options, including addressing factual adequacy, coherence, and explanatory power; where, e: something like the resurrection of Jesus in the context of prophecies, if well warranted as fact [and we have argued in the linked that it is] becomes one of the credible facts that has to be accounted for. f: In that context, we may effectively argue that the observed cosmos is credibly contingent [cf Big Bang], as well as its constituents, which warrants the conclusion that it requires a cause. g: At the root of that chain of cause is a necessary being, with sufficient power and skill to build a cosmos that sits at a fine-tuned operating point that facilitates C-chemistry, cell based life, even through multiverse suggestions [the sub-cosmos bread factory issue . . . what sort of supercosmic bread factory is needed to bake up a rich variety of sub-cosmi instead of the equivalent of a doughy half baked mess of ill-blended ingredients, or a blackened hockey puck of burned ingredients] h: Similarly, such a necessary being is either possible or impossible, but plainly it is not impossible: there is no self-contradiction, and indeed the above warrants that it is necessary as the ground of the contingent world we can see. So arguably the force of necessity acts: there is such a necessary being with the relevant attributes to account for a cosmos and for life including ourselves as minded, conscious, enconscienced creatures. i: That necessary being is implicated by the evident design of life and cosmos, and has the attributes necessary to account for such design: extracosmic, intelligent, very powerful, purposeful, acting as creator. These are of course features of the being we describe as God. j: Going further, as morally bound creatures — something atheists inadvertently acknowledge when they assume the repugnance of evil in mistakenly trying to argue from evil to atheism — a moral universe implies that the ground of its being is an IS that has in it inherent goodness sufficient to ground OUGHT. That is God is moral and specifically good. k: To cap off, starting with the 500+ eyewitnesses of C1, and continuing down to today, millions have personally come to meet and know the Living God in the face of the risen Christ. (And if you are offended by Christian particularism, I suggest you look here as a start.)
9 –> You of course claimed that there is a rich literature in critique of such a cumulative case. What you need to show to us is that that rich literature succeeds, not in showing what was never at issue — that it is possible to reject such arguments by challenging premises and dismissing facts — but that on comparative difficulties, your atheism is a superior conclusion, including in the implications of alternative premises to the rejected ones. 10 –> In particular, do not forget that if the human mind is so delusional that the millions across time who claim to have met and been transformed by God are deluded, then on what alternative grounds can you trust your mind not to be deluded when it arrives at atheistical, evolutionary materialistic conclusions? _________________ I think the ball is now in your court. >> ___________________ Again -- third time. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply