Fundamental Fallacies

[StuartJ]

Christians typically dodge giving direct honest answers to three fundamental questions:

1) Can Jehovah, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost be shown to exist anywhere other than in their imaginations ...?

2) Can a single verse of "scripture" be shown to have come from Jehovah, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost ...?

3) Can the Jesus character be shown to have been sired by either Jehovah or the Holy Ghost on a human virgin ...?

Question for debate: Why do Christians still believe - or pretend to believe - these things ...?

[bjs]

[Replying to post 18 by StuartJ]

[Replying to post 19 by StuartJ]

These doctrines are conclusions of a complete and well-formed worldview. They are not a starting place.

We first need to decide if there is a God at all. Then we need to decide if we should expect that God to interact with human beings. Then we must consider the most likely way that God would interact people and compare the various ways that people have claimed to interact with God.

If we become convinced that there is a God, and that God probably interacts with people, and that this interaction most likely comes in the form of the incarnation of Jesus, then we can reach the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God, and therefore sired by God the Father. We can also reach the conclusion that God has inspired a written record of His interaction with humanity.

If we dont accept the earlier premises then we cannot reach their conclusion, but that does not make those conclusions false. Jumping straight to the conclusions, without accepting the premises, is like trying to teach to calculous to someone who does not understand arithmetic.

[Jagella]

We first need to decide if there is a God at all. Then we need to decide if we should expect that God to interact with human beings. Then we must consider the most likely way that God would interact people and compare the various ways that people have claimed to interact with God.

There's much trouble with what you're saying here. First, your focus is way too narrow if by "God" you're referring to the Christian god. There are many gods people believe in and it is way too simplistic and culturally biased to decide if only the Christian god exists. So even if we discovered a god, we still face the problem of determining what god it might be. That god might be Zeus, Thor, Osiris or maybe some god we never thought of.

As far as that god interacting with humans is concerned, we still have the difficulty of cultural bias. Who truly speaks for that god and has received knowledge of that god? It depends on the culture in which that god has originated in. If a god exists, then there's little reason to believe he would interact with humans in any culture. From what we know about the cosmos, a god might be only really interested in stars; he created trillions of them! We humans might be merely an inconsequential byproduct of a god's creation of stars.

OK, what way might a god interact with people if she bothered to do so? I suppose any way she wanted to. It does seem unlikely to me that she would interact with us the way the Bible god supposedly has, though. The Bible god in many ways does not act like a god. He is often petty, insecure, and violent. He's not able to make his concerns clear to us. He's got terrible PR too in that most people don't believe he exists!

In other words, the Bible god seems much more like a human than a god. That's why I've concluded that he's the creation of humans.

[Tart]

Well you'd have to show it is built on lies, or mistakes (even if just reasonably shown).. I mean i am really, honestly, seeking to get a good explanation for Christianity from anyone. I think we should be critical on the matter... Did the Disciples mistake Jesus as the Messiah? Did they lie about its fulfillment? How so? In what ways? How do you make sense of the evidence?

Great! We're getting somewhere. Let's address the possibility that the New-Testament writers lied. Now, please consider the following claim I'm making:

Tart, my late father just rose from his grave, and he is sitting next to me eating fish watching as I compose my latest post to you.

OK--do you believe for a moment that I'm telling the truth? No, you know that I'm lying about my resurrected Dad sitting here. The reason you know I'm lying is because you know from your whole life's experience that people who are dead stay dead. That's why you'd scoff at any claim of a resurrection...
...except for the claim of Jesus being raised from the dead!

But the evidence is the same in all instances of claims of resurrections. People might say they see a dead person living again, but all they have is their word. There are no dead people living again ever presented. Elvis is never presented living again, and Jesus is never presented living again. But you scoff at Elvis sightings and are quick to believe that the dead Jesus was seen living again.

Really, you and I think much the same. We apply the same logic arriving at the same conclusions based on the same premises. We both know that claims of my Dad or Elvis living again are lies or at least mistakes. We only differ on Christian truth claims. That's where I continue to use the same logic consistently while you derail your logic to believe what you want to believe about a myth that comforts you.

Ok well i dont think those are in any way equivalent... Your Dad, Elvis, and Jesus... And im not opposed to miraculous claims, or unexplained phenomenon. Like for example, i am not opposed to say, aliens existing, having better technology then us, and perhaps being able to visit the Earth.. Even though i never experienced an encounter, and i believe probably the vast majority, if not 100%, of the claims are false.. But that is the thing. I am not opposed to it being true. In fact, I think assuming the position that only the things you experience can be true, or to assume that reality cant have these unexplainable phenomenon that go beyond your knowledge, is a bad position to assume. You are ruling out things that very well might exist, and be true, buy presupposition.

Why not instead withhold judgement that any of these things, beyond the scientifically explained, and beyond your knowledge, could be true? (which includes but is not limited to, miracles and divine acts, spirits, mind over matter, etc...)... Why not withhold judgement, instead of claiming knowledge that they are not true? I think withholding judgement it a much more reasonable position to take.

Now, as far as Jesus goes, i think the best explanation of the evidence is He is the Son of God. Sent by God to fulfill the destiny of the Messiah... And you equivalating Jesus to your Dad, is just a false equivalent... For example, we have not only the disciples telling us a story of Jesus, they are giving their reasoning of why they believe what they believe. They are showing evidence, like the prophecies. They are demonstrating why they believe its true, and why we should believe its true, and show genuine and authentic beliefs on the matter. They themselves demonstrate that they believe these things...

That isnt equivalent to you creating a lie, in a debate, to counter an argument... That was the intent of your comment... Do you believe the Disciples created the story of Jesus's Resurrection, as to counter a debate they had as to make a point that miracles can be false lies? Of course not... We should all agree that isnt their motive at all. This isnt equivalent...

I think the best explanation of the evidence is Jesus is the risen Son of God.

[Tcg]

Christians typically dodge giving direct honest answers to three fundamental questions:

This certainly has been the case so far in this thread.

1) Can Jehovah, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost be shown to exist anywhere other than in their imaginations ...?

2) Can a single verse of "scripture" be shown to have come from Jehovah, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost ...?

3) Can the Jesus character be shown to have been sired by either Jehovah or the Holy Ghost on a human virgin ...?

Straightforward yes or no questions that have not yet been answered. The answer so far is a clear "no." The responders so for have ignored the, "be shown to" phrase that is repeated in each question.

Perhaps someone well come along and address these questions as asked, but I'll be astounded if that happens.

Question for debate: Why do Christians still believe - or pretend to believe - these things ...?

What has been revealed is that it is very important for the Christian responders to believe these things. So important that they, as you predicted, have dodged all three questions.

I personally think that the dodge is not to try to fool readers here, but to enable themselves to stay very far from allowing the very real and in fact very likely possibility that their acceptance of these concepts is based on nothing but wishful thinking.

And what do the wish for? Number one I believe is to deny death. To be able to pretend that human life has some grand eternal purpose is another. Another biggie is to be comforted by the idea that some all powerful parent figure is watching out for them. There are others of course, but these are the three I see expressed on this board and others like it quite frequently.

Addressing your three questions honestly would put belief in these comforting wishes in peril. The solution? Dodge the questions to the extent that they are ignored before they are even considered openly.

[Tart]

We first need to decide if there is a God at all. Then we need to decide if we should expect that God to interact with human beings. Then we must consider the most likely way that God would interact people and compare the various ways that people have claimed to interact with God.

There's much trouble with what you're saying here. First, your focus is way too narrow if by "God" you're referring to the Christian god. There are many gods people believe in and it is way too simplistic and culturally biased to decide if only the Christian god exists. So even if we discovered a god, we still face the problem of determining what god it might be. That god might be Zeus, Thor, Osiris or maybe some god we never thought of.

As far as that god interacting with humans is concerned, we still have the difficulty of cultural bias. Who truly speaks for that god and has received knowledge of that god? It depends on the culture in which that god has originated in. If a god exists, then there's little reason to believe he would interact with humans in any culture. From what we know about the cosmos, a god might be only really interested in stars; he created trillions of them! We humans might be merely an inconsequential byproduct of a god's creation of stars.

OK, what way might a god interact with people if she bothered to do so? I suppose any way she wanted to. It does seem unlikely to me that she would interact with us the way the Bible god supposedly has, though. The Bible god in many ways does not act like a god. He is often petty, insecure, and violent. He's not able to make his concerns clear to us. He's got terrible PR too in that most people don't believe he exists!

In other words, the Bible god seems much more like a human than a god. That's why I've concluded that he's the creation of humans.

Where are you getting you standards for judging whether someone (or something) is a God?

Is this created in your imagination? Or some kind of objective standards?

[Tart]

Christians typically dodge giving direct honest answers to three fundamental questions:

This certainly has been the case so far in this thread.

1) Can Jehovah, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost be shown to exist anywhere other than in their imaginations ...?

2) Can a single verse of "scripture" be shown to have come from Jehovah, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost ...?

3) Can the Jesus character be shown to have been sired by either Jehovah or the Holy Ghost on a human virgin ...?

Straightforward yes or no questions that have not yet been answered. The answer so far is a clear "no." The responders so for have ignored the, "be shown to" phrase that is repeated in each question.

Perhaps someone well come along and address these questions as asked, but I'll be astounded if that happens.

Question for debate: Why do Christians still believe - or pretend to believe - these things ...?

What has been revealed is that it is very important for the Christian responders to believe these things. So important that they, as you predicted, have dodged all three questions.

I personally think that the dodge is not to try to fool readers here, but to enable themselves to stay very far from allowing the very real and in fact very likely possibility that their acceptance of these concepts is based on nothing but wishful thinking.

And what do the wish for? Number one I believe is to deny death. To be able to pretend that human life has some grand eternal purpose is another. Another biggie is to be comforted by the idea that some all powerful parent figure is watching out for them. There are others of course, but these are the three I see expressed on this board and others like it quite frequently.

Addressing your three questions honestly would put belief in these comforting wishes in peril. The solution? Dodge the questions to the extent that they are ignored before they are even considered openly.

tgc

I was just going to ignore this response from you, agian. But i wanted to let you know that people dont respond to you, becuase you dont respond to them... We have given reasonable answers that you pretend dont exist... You are more then entitled to do that, but if you actually want to converse about the discussion, id suggest actually responding to the arguments raised...

Just FYI...

[Tcg]

tgc

That would be, "Tcg"'

But i wanted to let you know that people dont respond to you, becuase you dont respond to them...

I didn't respond to you and therefore wasn't expecting nor hoping for a response from you. If you take note, my reply was to StuartJ and it included an actual response to the OP. It's something you might consider doing at some point.

[bjs]

[Replying to Jagella]

I neither narrowed my focus to much nor did I ignore cultural bias. However, I could rightly be accused of simplifying issues for the sake of brevity.

However, flushing out the issue I already brought up proves my point all the more: the questions from the opening post are flawed. There are a lot of other issues that must be dealt with before we can get to them.

Doctrines like the Virgin Birth or the Inspiration of Scripture are conclusions built on complex, well thought-out theology. We cant skip over massive amounts of theological understanding, go straight to the end, and then pretend that saying show x is true is a meaningful request.

[Tcg]

Christians typically dodge giving direct honest answers to three fundamental questions:

Apparently, it is unfair to ask questions that reveal the weakness of the Christian faith. I'm having a tough time thinking of any that wouldn't however.

Whatever they might be, I suppose you should be asking those instead. That would relieve them of the need to dodge the perfectly valid questions you have asked.

Question for debate: Why do Christians still believe - or pretend to believe - these things ...?

Adding to my previous reply, Christians still believe because they reject any questions that reveal the weakness of the Christian faith.

Blaming you for asking them is also a boon as it allows them to shift the focus off of the deficiencies of their faith. It is after all your fault for asking questions that would be so inconvenient for them to attempt to answer directly.

I wonder how many years of indoctrination are required before one is allowed to ask them?

I suspect the answer will always be, "More than you have now".

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 28 by bjs]

Doctrines like the Virgin Birth or the Inspiration of Scripture are conclusions built on complex, well thought-out theology.

This supposedly "well-thought-out" theology never offers a jot or a tittle of independently verifiable evidence to back itself up.

I suggest we are dealing with make-believe.

I suggest certain posters here know fine well they are dealing with make-believe they have a large investment in.

My questions are very, very simple and fundamental.

Straightforward, honest answers to the three points should also be very simple.

1) NO

2) NO

3) NO

The answer to the debate question is where the complex smokescreen gets very, very thick and the well-thought-out dance of diversion and distraction becomes exceedingly fervid.