Is forgiveness without a price a virtue?

[Justin108]

Is it a good thing to be able to forgive without any price?

If so, is God imperfect for being unable to forgive sin without Jesus' sacrifice?

[The Tanager]

2. Radical claims require radical evidence

It may be helpful to switch sections 1 and 2, so that is what I'm doing in these first 2 posts.

There are two general sections or steps involved in my argument for the Resurrection and an argument for Bigfoot (or fairies or whatever). Step 1 is what are the facts. Step 2 is what best explains those facts.

Step 1: What are the facts?

I'm afraid the only options are
a) assume the above mentioned
b) abandon the discussion

As I do not know what happened 2000 years ago, all I can do is assume.

That which was "above mentioned" [by you] was "the Gospels are first hand accounts." This is NOT one of my mentioned facts. So, I'm not asking you to assume that. It is irrelevant to my argument.

The fact you are talking about is that many agree that these are first hand accounts? Sure, I am aware that many agree that these are first hand accounts.

That, also, is NOT one of my mentioned facts. I'm not asking you to agree that many scholars agree these are first hand accounts. If they are first hand accounts or not is irrelevant to my argument.

These are the three facts I'm talking about:

(A) The earliest Christians claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus
(B) Jesus was buried in a tomb after Cruxificion, but a short time later the tomb was empty
(C) The Christian movement originated with a central focus on the Resurrected Jesus

I don't say anything about the Gospels being first hand accounts there. Why do you think I mean that? Before moving onto the next step we must be in agreement that these are probably the case. Then we would move on to step 2.

Step 2: What best explains these facts?

Here we start asking and trying to answer questions like: should Jesus' disciples be trusted? Could they have lied? Could they have been hallucinating? Could they have stolen the body? Did Jesus really die? Why did people appear to join the Christian movement? Those kinds of things.

[The Tanager]

1. Does the Christian God reject people for beliefs they don't have control over?

I don't have to. I don't care to convince you that Big Foot exists. All I needed to do was prove that there is a rational argument for Big Foot (as per your definition) and since Big Foot now has a rational argument, it is (unlike fairies) not a "dead option".

But you haven't proven there is a rational argument. You've done step 1, not step 2. You've said here is some evidence that you can maybe make a rational argument from. If I wanted to press you here I could say make the rational argument (step 2), like I'll be attempting to do with the Resurrection. Not 'convince me,' but show it to be a rational argument. But, I am fine if it is a rational argument, so I don't care if you actually do that. So, let's assume you did that. How does this help your argument that we don't have control over some of our beliefs?

Can you prove that you don't have control over your disbelief in fairies?

No. So, let's say you want to claim that I do have control over my disbelief in fairies. Okay, I'll say I agree. How does this help your critique?

[The Tanager]

3. The Effect of Sin

I am well aware of the fact that saying something improbable doesn't show incoherence, but it being improbable is a problem within itself. We are left with Christianity either being incoherent, or it being improbable. As it stands, Christianity is between a rock and a hard place.

Why is improbability a problem? I could understand it being a problem if probability determined truth, but you already agreed it didn't (I thought). So, your dilemma is saying that either Christianity is incoherent or true but improbable. Okay (assuming for the sake of argument your view of the probability here). Where's the problem?

You're stating the obvious here. Of course the arguments would be stronger if they were true. But we cannot know if they are true. Can you prove that Christianity is true?

You were saying that if we don't know the truth of a specific issue it is rational to go with the most probable answer, even though probability doesn't determine truth. I was saying that even if you are correct here that ignoring everything else it is more probable that God created us sinfully-inclined than truly free, that we should not ignore everything else. That other things would strengthen the probability that God created us truly free. And an important piece of my reasoning there would be my argument about the Resurrection.

Is "choosing oatmeal" in your analogy not a free will decision? And did you not say that "the odds of everyone choosing oatmeal are staggeringly low"?

The odds of winning a contest of some sort are staggeringly low in one sense, but in another sense I have an equal likelihood to everyone else to actually win it. That's why I am wary of probability when trying to come to the truth of the matter. The numbers on a dice all being a six is improbable when we lay out all the possible outcomes. So what? Tell me people chose what it was going to say and tell me it was always a 6 and I say, okay, that makes sense because I understand free will has nothing to do with mechanistic odds and so defying the odds isn't actually improbable.

[The Tanager]

4. An analysis of one analogy of the Christian solution

According to your interpretation of my analogy, everything is apparently an analogy for surrender

getting up the cliff = surrender
pushing = surrender
tying your shoes = surrender

If you aim to "correct" my misanalogy, please fill in all the blanks from scratch

getting up the cliff = ???
climbing = ???
pushing = ???

Climbing and pushing are ways of getting up the cliff. They are specifications, not different activities. If you are climbing (in this scenario) you are getting up the cliff on your own power. If you are being pushed you are getting up the cliff on the power of another. Tying your shoes would be a different thing in the analogy if you wanted to map that on something to clarify a point.

You've been dancing around this argument from the start. I expect you to either lay out a concise, carefully worded, tautology-free, unambiguous explanation for why it is logically impossible for God to successfully help us surrender without becoming Jesus first. I want to know what exactly God gained from becoming Jesus, why what he gained was absolutely necessary, how he used what he gained and why it was successful. If you cannot do this then you have failed to explain the necessity of Jesus Christ and his purpose on earth.

Like I said, we've had the opportunities to share our arguments and critiques and to also share what we think of each other's attempts. I'm out of new ways to try to explain it.

[The Tanager]

Sorry for just now answering, I missed your question back in the day...

My definition of belief depends on the topic, or tone. As it relates to religious belief, I define it as holding true a set of dogmas that have zero empirical data or evidence to back them up.

No problem on missing it earlier. So, are you saying atheism is not a belief because (1) it holds true a set of dogmas that have some empirical data and evidence to back it up or (2) lacks a set of dogmas entirely or (3) something else?

[Kenisaw]

Sorry for just now answering, I missed your question back in the day...

My definition of belief depends on the topic, or tone. As it relates to religious belief, I define it as holding true a set of dogmas that have zero empirical data or evidence to back them up.

No problem on missing it earlier. So, are you saying atheism is not a belief because (1) it holds true a set of dogmas that have some empirical data and evidence to back it up or (2) lacks a set of dogmas entirely or (3) something else?

The definition (or one of them anyway) of atheism is "lack of belief".

[Justin108]

These are the three facts I'm talking about:

(A) The earliest Christians claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus
(B) Jesus was buried in a tomb after Cruxificion, but a short time later the tomb was empty
(C) The Christian movement originated with a central focus on the Resurrected Jesus

How should I know if any of these are indeed facts? I'm no historian. The best I can do is listen to what other historians say and even then, all I can do is assume they know what they're talking about.

(A) The earliest Christians claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus

How can I possibly know this? Some historians agree that this is the case while others believe that the resurrection account was fabricated some time later. I have absolutely no idea what the first Christians believed.

(B) Jesus was buried in a tomb after Cruxificion, but a short time later the tomb was empty

Again, some historians agree with this while other historians question whether Jesus ever existed at all.

(C) The Christian movement originated with a central focus on the Resurrected Jesus

Again, I do not know.


I have said this repeatedly and I will say it again. I do not know whether these are indeed facts. You are asking me to make a knowledge claim of something I do not know. The best I can do is say "we can assume these three claims to be facts". If you cannot progress any further from this then too bad. I'm not about to call them facts when I do not know the truth.

Step 2: What best explains these facts?

Here we start asking and trying to answer questions like: should Jesus' disciples be trusted? Could they have lied? Could they have been hallucinating? Could they have stolen the body? Did Jesus really die? Why did people appear to join the Christian movement? Those kinds of things.

I suggest we move on to step 2 because I'm not going to change my stance on step 1.

[Justin108]

I don't have to. I don't care to convince you that Big Foot exists. All I needed to do was prove that there is a rational argument for Big Foot (as per your definition) and since Big Foot now has a rational argument, it is (unlike fairies) not a "dead option".

But you haven't proven there is a rational argument. You've done step 1, not step 2. You've said here is some evidence that you can maybe make a rational argument from. If I wanted to press you here I could say make the rational argument (step 2), like I'll be attempting to do with the Resurrection.

And if you fail to make a rational argument then you can no longer claim that I have a choice in believing in the Christian God. Can we agree on that?

Not 'convince me,' but show it to be a rational argument. But, I am fine if it is a rational argument, so I don't care if you actually do that. So, let's assume you did that. How does this help your argument that we don't have control over some of our beliefs?

If the arguments in favor of Big Foot are rational arguments, then you should (according to the logic you have demonstrated so far) be able to choose to believe in Big Foot. If you cannot choose to believe in Big Foot despite the rational arguments, you cannot make the claim that I have a choice in believing in the Christian God as that would make you a hypocrite. If you can't choose what you believe then why do you insist I can?

Can you prove that you don't have control over your disbelief in fairies?

No.

Then why should I believe you? Why should I take your word that you cannot choose to believe in fairies yet you refuse to take my word that I cannot choose to believe in the Christian God?

So, let's say you want to claim that I do have control over my disbelief in fairies. Okay, I'll say I agree. How does this help your critique?

It won't because you'd be lying. You've been saying over and over that you do not have control over your disbelief in fairies. If you changed your story now, it would just make you a liar. My point is you cannot hold a belief that is outside of your control and then insist that my belief is within my control. That's hypocritical.

[Justin108]

I am well aware of the fact that saying something improbable doesn't show incoherence, but it being improbable is a problem within itself. We are left with Christianity either being incoherent, or it being improbable. As it stands, Christianity is between a rock and a hard place.

Why is improbability a problem?

Because improbable claims are less likely to be true than probable claims. That's what "improbable" means.

I could understand it being a problem if probability determined truth, but you already agreed it didn't (I thought).

Probability does not determine truth but it does help in discovering truth. We do not know the truth. It is more rational to believe in that which is probably true than that which is improbably true. While I cannot say "Christianity is untrue", I can say "Christianity is improbable". If I can say that Christianity is improbable, then it would be irrational to believe in Christianity. That is my position. Christianity is irrational.

So, your dilemma is saying that either Christianity is incoherent or true but improbable. Okay (assuming for the sake of argument your view of the probability here). Where's the problem?

What? No. Not "true but improbable", just "improbable". Neither you nor I know whether Christianity is true.

You were saying that if we don't know the truth of a specific issue it is rational to go with the most probable answer, even though probability doesn't determine truth.

That is correct.

I was saying that even if you are correct here that ignoring everything else it is more probable that God created us sinfully-inclined than truly free, that we should not ignore everything else.

What am I ignoring that would make your claim any less improbable?

[Justin108]

4. An analysis of one analogy of the Christian solution

According to your interpretation of my analogy, everything is apparently an analogy for surrender

getting up the cliff = surrender
pushing = surrender
tying your shoes = surrender

If you aim to "correct" my misanalogy, please fill in all the blanks from scratch

getting up the cliff = ???
climbing = ???
pushing = ???

Climbing and pushing are ways of getting up the cliff.

No. Pushing is a way to get someone else up the cliff. If God pushes us, we are the ones who get up the cliff. Not God. So if God is unable to get up the cliff, that shouldn't matter because pushing us won't get him up the cliff, it will get us up the cliff.

So
- God cannot get up the cliff / surrender
- but there is no reason he can't push us up the cliff

If you are being pushed you are getting up the cliff on the power of another.

Yes. YOU are getting up the cliff. God isn't. So God isn't violating the no-getting-up-the-cliff rule. God is not surrendering. He is simply helping you surrender.

Like I said, we've had the opportunities to share our arguments and critiques and to also share what we think of each other's attempts. I'm out of new ways to try to explain it.

You could not make a coherent argument for why it was logically necessary for God to become human, and so your claim that it was logically necessary is baseless. I suggest we close this portion of the debate until you can come up with one such argument. One that does not rely on tautologies or inconcrete analogies.