What Is The Apologetic For Cognitive Dissonance?

[bluegreenearth]

From Wikipedia -

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance occurs when a person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, or participates in an action that goes against one of these three, and experiences psychological stress because of that. According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent. The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein they try to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.

In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency to function mentally in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable and is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance. They tend to make changes to justify the stressful behavior, either by adding new parts to the cognition causing the psychological dissonance or by avoiding circumstances and contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.

Coping with the nuances of contradictory ideas or experiences is mentally stressful. It requires energy and effort to sit with those seemingly opposite things that all seem true. Festinger argued that some people would inevitably resolve dissonance by blindly believing whatever they wanted to believe.

According to Christian theology, God desires for people to make the freewill decision to believe he exists and be in a loving relationship with him. Once people freely choose to accept Christ as their one true Lord and savior, the Holy Spirit is claimed to descend upon them to reveal the truth of Christianity in such a way that it is undeniable. Consequently, we would expect cognitive dissonance to never occur in Christians if their sincere belief is true. Nevertheless, one of the primary functions of apologetics is help Christians suppress the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience.

Once the truth of Christianity is divinely revealed to people by the Holy Spirit, it should be impossible for these Christians to hold two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. After all, their freewill choice to trust the word of God and acknowledge Jesus's sacrifice for their sins will have satisfied God's criteria for granting them the gift of salvation. As such, we expect there should be no theological purpose for God not to insulate his true Christian followers from experiencing cognitive dissonance now that he has assured their place in his kingdom.

At the very least, if Christianity is true, any secular beliefs that would seem to contradict Biblical beliefs should not be more compelling to a true Christian. However, the fact that Christians routinely experience cognitive dissonance demonstrates that the secular beliefs are often more persuasive than the Biblical beliefs they seem to contradict. Otherwise, we would expect an inability for those secular beliefs to routinely elicit experiences of cognitive dissonance in true Christians.

So, what are the apologetic arguments for why apologetics is needed to help true Christians suppress the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience given the aforementioned considerations? Why does apologetics not become obsolete after people become true Christians, but instead, it remains an essential tool for suppressing the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience?

[Don McIntosh]

.

Not really. Just as there are millions of books and papers supporting various scientific hypotheses, there are also millions of books and papers which independently support the rationality of biblical Christian theism. Those sources (not always written by religious people) confirm various aspects of Christianity with evidence from ancient historiography and early church history, cosmology, logic, epistemology, religious experience, miracle accounts and probability theory, fine-tuning and specified complexity in nature, prophecies in history, etc.

Yup, all sorts of convoluted speculation, opinion, conjecture, etc

BUT no verifiable evidence

Interesting. Earlier you were assuring me that you are open to evidence for Christianity,

Correction: I am open to VERIFIABLE evidence – not 'Take my word for it, or his, or this book'.

I don't know of any evidence that is not verifiable (or otherwise obviously true), just as I don't know anyone who would say "Take my word for it" constitutes evidence.

I trust that readers would be interested too. Some of them (2230 views of this thread so far) might be weighing the merits of what is said by Apologists vs. what is said by Non-Theists. Show them evidence that they can check for themselves for truth and accuracy.

I gave it my best shot, Z. I'm confident that God exists and that the facts I presented make Christian theism more probable than it would be otherwise (which is really all that can be expected of evidence). I'm also confident that reasonable and relatively objective people can make up their own minds quite apart from sweeping, authoritative pronouncements from either you or me, so that I would encourage readers to investigate both sides of the issue further if they are so inclined.

In other words, how people weigh the merits of what is said on this board is entirely up to them...which if you think about it is kind of what I've been trying to say all along.

but now you're assuring me that there is no evidence for the truth of Christianity in millions of papers and books supporting the truth of Christianity.

There are many books about unicorns, leprechauns, and fairies too. Does that provide verifiable evidence they are anything more than imaginary?

There are serious books by intelligent, well-educated scholars offering evidence for the truth of Christianity and there are manifestly fictional books about unicorns and fairies – but there are also books promoting atheism and humanism, along with geology and evolutionary biology textbooks that instructors use to teach their students. If the point there is that all books must be baseless fiction because some books are baseless fiction, I don't think my position will come off any worse than yours.

Long-dead bodies come back to life,
Earth stopped rotating ('Sun stood still' for a day),
Earth was flooded 'to the tops of mountains',
Donkeys and snakes converse in human language,
Gods confused languages to stop building of a tower that they feared would reach heaven,
Eating magic fruit conveyed knowledge (or another would convey immortality),
A star stopped over a birthplace, etc, etc.

Perhaps some of those tales can be overlooked as exuberant utterances of delusional believers.

The key to the above lines of rhetoric appears to be the question-begging phrase "delusional believers."

Notice that those 'lines of rhetoric' are taken from the Bible.

I will remind you that I’m now holding you to your own standards. By those standards, anything other than an exact quote is a "straw man." Unless you know of a version of the Bible that includes the above seven statements verbatim, it follows (again by your standards, not mine) that your argument is a straw man.

It is understandable that Apologists are unable to show verifiable evidence that any such things actually occurred – ducking and weaving when challenged.

At least I made some effort. But if you don't like ducking and weaving, then could you please finally come out and provide verifiable evidence to support your claim that I am unable to show verifiable evidence? Pretty please with sugar on top? If you cannot or will not, then (again by your own standards) there is no reason for me to believe your claims.

To put all this simply: you and I disagree about whether there is good evidence for Christian theism, possibly because we do not agree on what it means for something to be "evidence" in the first place. That's okay. Intelligent, rational people disagree about such questions all the time. But for whatever reason you keep declaring it some kind indisputable truism that there is no such evidence, or that no such evidence has ever been provided by anyone, or that apologists are unable to show any such evidence – however you choose to word it (the difference seems almost negligible).

Here's your chance to prove me wrong – set forth verifiable evidence. Don't be shy.

For me the question is not whether I can "prove you wrong," but whether it is possible in principle for me to provide evidence that is relevant, admissible and valid on its merits, but that you either cannot recognize or refuse to acknowledge. Given what we know about human psychology (and our tendencies toward confirmation bias, disconfirmation bias, escalation of commitment, etc.), I would say at minimum that it's a viable hypothesis.

I laid out eight or nine specific facts which I believe support the truth of Christian theism. You dismissed all them out of hand, which is your prerogative. But even if my evidence and arguments were a complete failure, I gave it my best shot and was not shy about it in the least. You, on the other hand, appear quite bashful about your own beliefs and convictions. I suspect that's because you know I can dismiss any claim you care to make just as readily and easily as you have dismissed mine.

So if you would, please step up and provide verifiable evidence for the following claims:

1. Publicly accessible and relevant facts that are made by competent scholars in peer-reviewed publications and that appear to support the truth of Christianity do not qualify as evidence.
2. The universe originated by strictly natural processes.
3. Life on earth originated by strictly natural processes.
4. Having originated by strictly natural processes, all of life on earth evolved from a common ancestor, again by strictly natural processes.
5. Any claim not supported by verifiable evidence is not worthy of belief.

Which of those claims / statements have I made?

NONE.

I am not expected to defend statements provided by others (sometimes known as straw-men).

Earlier you protested that your series of statements about "magic fruit" and whatnot was taken directly from the Bible. Notice not only that the Bible does not use that specific language, but that I never made any of those statements myself (which by your understanding of what a "straw man" is would make those statements an irrelevant collection of straw men). However, you would be right to infer that my being a Christian commits me in some way to belief in the veracity of Scripture – though we may have differ on what makes for the best interpretation of a given text.

Now I have done something very similar. It may be that you have not stated directly that you believe the universe and life within it originated by strictly natural processes. But I have inferred that such is probably part of what you believe, in that I've never met an atheist who was not willing to openly and boldly subscribe to a belief in the truth of that proposition. Likewise, because you have often suggested that theists are not rational to believe certain propositions without verifiable evidence, I have inferred that you believe any claim not supported by verifiable evidence is not worthy of belief.

But now I'm inviting you to set the record straight. Were my inferences really off target? Are you willing to go out on a limb and state one way or another whether you believe the universe and life within it arose from purely natural causes and means? That maybe the diversity of life observable on Earth today did not evolve from a common ancestor? That some claims not supported by verifiable evidence might be worthy of belief? As you said to me, I say to you: Don't be shy!

[Zzyzx]

.

Long-dead bodies come back to life,
Earth stopped rotating ('Sun stood still' for a day),
Earth was flooded 'to the tops of mountains',
Donkeys and snakes converse in human language,
Gods confused languages to stop building of a tower that they feared would reach heaven,
Eating magic fruit conveyed knowledge (or another would convey immortality),
A star stopped over a birthplace, etc, etc.

Perhaps some of those tales can be overlooked as exuberant utterances of delusional believers.

The key to the above lines of rhetoric appears to be the question-begging phrase "delusional believers."

Notice that those 'lines of rhetoric' are taken from the Bible.

I will remind you that I’m now holding you to your own standards. By those standards, anything other than an exact quote is a "straw man."

Have I said “anything other than an exact quote is a 'straw man'�? Quote me with URL.

A straw-man would be you arguing against what you make up and attribute to me.

1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

Matthew 27:51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[a] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Joshua 10:13 So the sun stood still,     and the moon stopped,     till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!

Genesis 7:19 Finally, the waters completely inundated the earth, so that all the high mountains under all the heavens were covered. 20The waters rose and covered the mountaintops to a depth of fifteen cubits.

Numbers 22:28 Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?�

Genesis 11:5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.�

Genesis 3:4 “You will not certainly die,� the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.� 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Now with 'proper citations' in hand, can you show readers that the events described actually occurred in the real world?

Can you make even a weak case for the 'saints' rising from their graves and going to town? Concerning the 'resurrection' of Jesus, is there verifiable evidence aside from the tales themselves that such an event occurred – or does one just take the word of gospel writers?

Not really. Just as there are millions of books and papers supporting various scientific hypotheses, there are also millions of books and papers which independently support the rationality of biblical Christian theism. Those sources (not always written by religious people) confirm various aspects of Christianity with evidence from ancient historiography and early church history, cosmology, logic, epistemology, religious experience, miracle accounts and probability theory, fine-tuning and specified complexity in nature, prophecies in history, etc.

Yup, all sorts of convoluted speculation, opinion, conjecture, etc

BUT no verifiable evidence

Interesting. Earlier you were assuring me that you are open to evidence for Christianity,

Correction: I am open to VERIFIABLE evidence – not 'Take my word for it, or his, or this book'.

I don't know of any evidence that is not verifiable (or otherwise obviously true),

Can tales of saints raising from graves and going to town be verified by anything other than the tale itself?

just as I don't know anyone who would say "Take my word for it" constitutes evidence.

What besides 'take my word for it (or his)' can be cited in support of the 'resurrection'?

If one does not take the word of gospel writers, what is left?

I trust that readers would be interested too. Some of them (2230 views of this thread so far) might be weighing the merits of what is said by Apologists vs. what is said by Non-Theists. Show them evidence that they can check for themselves for truth and accuracy.

I gave it my best shot, Z.

You do far better than most Apologists that I debate.

I'm confident that God exists and that the facts I presented make Christian theism more probable than it would be otherwise (which is really all that can be expected of evidence). I'm also confident that reasonable and relatively objective people can make up their own minds quite apart from sweeping, authoritative pronouncements from either you or me, so that I would encourage readers to investigate both sides of the issue further if they are so inclined.

I agree 100%

In other words, how people weigh the merits of what is said on this board is entirely up to them...which if you think about it is kind of what I've been trying to say all along.

That is why I debate here.

but now you're assuring me that there is no evidence for the truth of Christianity in millions of papers and books supporting the truth of Christianity.

There are many books about unicorns, leprechauns, and fairies too. Does that provide verifiable evidence they are anything more than imaginary?

There are serious books by intelligent, well-educated scholars offering evidence for the truth of Christianity and there are manifestly fictional books about unicorns and fairies – but there are also books promoting atheism and humanism, along with geology and evolutionary biology textbooks that instructors use to teach their students. If the point there is that all books must be baseless fiction because some books are baseless fiction, I don't think my position will come off any worse than yours.

What assures that the Bible is not 'baseless fiction'? Mentioning some actual people, places and events does not remove it from fiction any more than mention of Lincoln, plantations and battles elevates Gone With the Wind from fiction.

Unless you know of a version of the Bible that includes the above seven statements verbatim, it follows (again by your standards, not mine) that your argument is a straw man.

I trust that readers realize that Bible stories contain each of the items listed – whether in exact words or not – and that many realize that attempts to demonstrate that such things actually happened requires a leap of faith rather than sound reasoning and verifiable evidence.

It is understandable that Apologists are unable to show verifiable evidence that any such things actually occurred – ducking and weaving when challenged.

At least I made some effort. But if you don't like ducking and weaving, then could you please finally come out and provide verifiable evidence to support your claim that I am unable to show verifiable evidence? Pretty please with sugar on top? If you cannot or will not, then (again by your own standards) there is no reason for me to believe your claims.

Here is your chance to prove me wrong to the viewers of this thread (2335 so far). Lay out the verifiable evidence. Show readers that you speak truth and accuracy.

To put all this simply: you and I disagree about whether there is good evidence for Christian theism, possibly because we do not agree on what it means for something to be "evidence" in the first place.

I emphasize verifiable evidence – evidence that anyone interested can check for truth and accuracy. Ancient texts of unknown veracity and philosophical musings do not constitute verifiable evidence.

That's okay. Intelligent, rational people disagree about such questions all the time. But for whatever reason you keep declaring it some kind indisputable truism that there is no such evidence, or that no such evidence has ever been provided by anyone, or that apologists are unable to show any such evidence – however you choose to word it (the difference seems almost negligible).

Again, show readers verifiable evidence to support

Here's your chance to prove me wrong – set forth verifiable evidence. Don't be shy.

For me the question is not whether I can "prove you wrong," but whether it is possible in principle for me to provide evidence that is relevant, admissible and valid on its merits, but that you either cannot recognize or refuse to acknowledge.

Can you provide evidence that does not require taking someone's oral or written word?

Given what we know about human psychology (and our tendencies toward confirmation bias, disconfirmation bias, escalation of commitment, etc.), I would say at minimum that it's a viable hypothesis.

I laid out eight or nine specific facts which I believe support the truth of Christian theism. You dismissed all them out of hand, which is your prerogative. But even if my evidence and arguments were a complete failure, I gave it my best shot and was not shy about it in the least.

A for effort.

You, on the other hand, appear quite bashful about your own beliefs and convictions. I suspect that's because you know I can dismiss any claim you care to make just as readily and easily as you have dismissed mine.

Correction: My position is clearly stated in signature that appears on every post. “ANY of the thousands of ‘gods’ proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist – awaiting verifiable evidence�

What part of that is unclear or in need of clarification?

So if you would, please step up and provide verifiable evidence for the following claims:

1. Publicly accessible and relevant facts that are made by competent scholars in peer-reviewed publications and that appear to support the truth of Christianity do not qualify as evidence.
2. The universe originated by strictly natural processes.
3. Life on earth originated by strictly natural processes.
4. Having originated by strictly natural processes, all of life on earth evolved from a common ancestor, again by strictly natural processes.
5. Any claim not supported by verifiable evidence is not worthy of belief.

Which of those claims / statements have I made?

NONE.

I am not expected to defend statements provided by others (sometimes known as straw-men).

Earlier you protested that your series of statements about "magic fruit" and whatnot was taken directly from the Bible. Notice not only that the Bible does not use that specific language, but that I never made any of those statements myself (which by your understanding of what a "straw man" is would make those statements an irrelevant collection of straw men).

A major difference: None of the statements you made relate to my stated position. I have not / do not claim that any of them are true or applicable.

Conversely: statements from the Bible ARE relevant to the claimed position “Christian� – and come from its foundational literature

However, you would be right to infer that my being a Christian commits me in some way to belief in the veracity of Scripture – though we may have differ on what makes for the best interpretation of a given text.

I quote the appropriate Bible passages for each of the statements, kindly defend them as truthful and accurate descriptions of events that actually happened in the real world?

Now I have done something very similar. It may be that you have not stated directly that you believe the universe and life within it originated by strictly natural processes. But I have inferred that such is probably part of what you believe,

It would be prudent to NOT 'infer' (make up in your head) the position of others.

in that I've never met an atheist who was not willing to openly and boldly subscribe to a belief in the truth of that proposition.

Remarkable claim.

How does Atheists you have met relate to me or my position? My stated theological position (which is not open to dispute in this Forum) is Non-Theist. That means not a theist – nothing more, nothing less.

Likewise, because you have often suggested that theists are not rational to believe certain propositions without verifiable evidence,

I make no such suggestion. However, I do occasionally mention that being naive and gullible equate to being easily fooled or duped – such as when one believes snake oil salesmen.

I have inferred that you believe any claim not supported by verifiable evidence is not worthy of belief.

Claims that cannot be verified as truthful and accurate are not worthy of MY 'belief' (acceptance). What others do in that regard is their business.

But now I'm inviting you to set the record straight. Were my inferences really off target? Are you willing to go out on a limb and state one way or another whether you believe the universe and life within it arose from purely natural causes and means?

You are dead wrong if you think my position includes claim of knowledge (or 'belief') regarding origins.

I have no opinion regarding how the universe formed or how life began. I do not pretend to know what I do not know – leaving such boasting or delusions to others.

I am aware of several theories regarding the origin of the universe and of life (including some that propose all was poofed into existence by one of the proposed 'gods').

That maybe the diversity of life observable on Earth today did not evolve from a common ancestor?

I do not claim to know how life originated.

That some claims not supported by verifiable evidence might be worthy of belief? As you said to me, I say to you: Don't be shy!

Unsupported claims may be worthy of provisional acceptance. However, such acceptance is simply opinion.

[Don McIntosh]

1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

Matthew 27:51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[a] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Joshua 10:13 So the sun stood still,     and the moon stopped,     till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!

Genesis 7:19 Finally, the waters completely inundated the earth, so that all the high mountains under all the heavens were covered. 20The waters rose and covered the mountaintops to a depth of fifteen cubits.

Numbers 22:28 Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?�

Genesis 11:5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.�

Genesis 3:4 “You will not certainly die,� the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.� 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Now with 'proper citations' in hand, can you show readers that the events described actually occurred in the real world?

Keep in mind, I already provided what I believe is evidence for the veracity of Scripture, and already stated that I believe that evidence is sufficient for at least some readers (other than you).

Besides, my point was not that I can "show readers" that the events happened, but that without the added colorful language the rhetoric loses some of its impact. For example, there’s a significant difference between "the Lord opened the donkey's mouth" in order to make it speak, and "Donkeys converse in human language." The former attributes a singular remarkable event to the intervention of God as a sign to a wayward prophet (Balaam), while the latter appears to describe a world where donkeys talk in the ordinary course of things. So likewise God determining certain consequences for eating from a designated tree doesn't invoke "magic."

Can you make even a weak case for the 'saints' rising from their graves and going to town? Concerning the 'resurrection' of Jesus, is there verifiable evidence aside from the tales themselves that such an event occurred – or does one just take the word of gospel writers?

Oh, I think I could make a decent case for the resurrection if I had the time and energy. But as it happens I have never set out to do so (though now that you mention it, I probably should). The most I have done is made some general procedural observations touching on the issue, as in these blog posts:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017 ... ction.html
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016 ... ction.html

Another post addresses what seems to be our main point of disagreement, here:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017 ... dence.html

Tom Wright, Richard Swinburne, William Craig, Gary Habermas and others have reviewed historical evidence for the resurrection in detail, and I encourage those interested to consult their works.

I'm confident that God exists and that the facts I presented make Christian theism more probable than it would be otherwise (which is really all that can be expected of evidence). I'm also confident that reasonable and relatively objective people can make up their own minds quite apart from sweeping, authoritative pronouncements from either you or me, so that I would encourage readers to investigate both sides of the issue further if they are so inclined.

I agree 100%

You're confident that God exists? Well then my work is done!

Seriously, I'm heartened to hear you agree on those points.

At least I made some effort. But if you don't like ducking and weaving, then could you please finally come out and provide verifiable evidence to support your claim that I am unable to show verifiable evidence? Pretty please with sugar on top? If you cannot or will not, then (again by your own standards) there is no reason for me to believe your claims.

Here is your chance to prove me wrong to the viewers of this thread (2335 so far). Lay out the verifiable evidence. Show readers that you speak truth and accuracy.

Wait a minute. I have confessed more than once that the facts I presented were not enough to convince you that there is evidence for Christianity. I will go one further and confess that as far as you are concerned, I don't believe I could ever, not even in principle, provide any evidence whatsoever for the truth of Christianity. Not the teensiest scrap, shred, iota or scintilla. Okay? So it's a bit irritating (I can only hope not irritating by design) when I then ask for evidence to support your own claim, and all you can do is mechanically turn around and ask me again to show evidence for Christianity.

To this point this discussion was mildly interesting. But now you're simply parroting the same line repeatedly for its rhetorical/polemical punch even where it's completely out of place. To me it's kind of like a guy who drops F-bombs in every sentence to sound tough. After a while he sounds less like a tough guy and more like a guy who just uses the F-word far too often.

So if you would, please step up and provide verifiable evidence for the following claims:

1. Publicly accessible and relevant facts that are made by competent scholars in peer-reviewed publications and that appear to support the truth of Christianity do not qualify as evidence.
2. The universe originated by strictly natural processes.
3. Life on earth originated by strictly natural processes.
4. Having originated by strictly natural processes, all of life on earth evolved from a common ancestor, again by strictly natural processes.
5. Any claim not supported by verifiable evidence is not worthy of belief.

Which of those claims / statements have I made?

NONE.

I am not expected to defend statements provided by others (sometimes known as straw-men).

None of the statements you made relate to my stated position. I have not / do not claim that any of them are true or applicable.

My stated theological position (which is not open to dispute in this Forum) is Non-Theist. That means not a theist – nothing more, nothing less.

I make no such suggestion

.

Claims that cannot be verified as truthful and accurate are not worthy of MY 'belief' (acceptance). What others do in that regard is their business.

You are dead wrong if you think my position includes claim of knowledge (or 'belief') regarding origins.

I have no opinion regarding how the universe formed or how life began. I do not pretend to know what I do not know – leaving such boasting or delusions to others.

I do not claim to know how life originated.

From all this, I can only conclude that you do not believe in anything with enough confidence or conviction to actually defend it in a public forum. That being the case, I don't think it's an especially significant or interesting matter for debate that you don't believe in God either. Unless and until you are willing to set forth any of your own beliefs and defend any of your own claims (with "verifiable evidence"), that wraps up my part in this thread.

One last thing, though: I fear that the nature of my dispute (not with atheism per se but with your particular approach to the issue) led me to some overly personal and possibly offensive remarks. For that I apologize; I probably could have worded things a little less so with some effort. I do thank you for the discussion and leave you the last word.

[Zzyzx]

.

Now with 'proper citations' in hand, can you show readers that the events described actually occurred in the real world?

Keep in mind, I already provided what I believe is evidence for the veracity of Scripture, and already stated that I believe that evidence is sufficient for at least some readers (other than you).

Yes, some people believe the god tales. Forty percent of US adults claim to attend church regularly – and church attendance figures indicate that only 20% actually attend.

Besides, my point was not that I can "show readers" that the events happened, but that without the added colorful language the rhetoric loses some of its impact.

I got my point across – and quoted scripture when challenged – still no coherent response.

Some of my minister friends in real life cringe when I refer to their 'congregation' as 'customers'. However, they seem to catch on when I ask 'Who pays the bills?�

For example, there’s a significant difference between "the Lord opened the donkey's mouth" in order to make it speak, and "Donkeys converse in human language." The former attributes a singular remarkable event to the intervention of God as a sign to a wayward prophet (Balaam), while the latter appears to describe a world where donkeys talk in the ordinary course of things.

Did a donkey talk (converse) in human language with Balaam?

So likewise God determining certain consequences for eating from a designated tree doesn't invoke "magic."

Quibbling about 'magic' vs. 'miracle' is nothing more than semantics. Both denote an event that is beyond what is known of real life – such as a woman being sawed in half and/or eating a fruit imparting knowledge. (Wasn't another fruit said to grant immortality?)

Can you make even a weak case for the 'saints' rising from their graves and going to town? Concerning the 'resurrection' of Jesus, is there verifiable evidence aside from the tales themselves that such an event occurred – or does one just take the word of gospel writers?

Oh, I think I could make a decent case for the resurrection if I had the time and energy. But as it happens I have never set out to do so (though now that you mention it, I probably should).

I challenge you to do so. What verifiable evidence can you present?

Unverified tales in an ancient book promoting religion?
Argumentum ad populum ('Many believed')?
Testimonials?
Conjectures and opinions?

What else?

Tom Wright, Richard Swinburne, William Craig, Gary Habermas and others have reviewed historical evidence for the resurrection in detail, and I encourage those interested to consult their works.

None of those people appear to debate here. Feel free to invite them.

In the interest of finding capable Apologist debaters to improve the quality of theistic debate, I have contacted ministerial schools to invite faculty and students to engage in debate on our level playing field – with no discernible result.

I'm confident that God exists and that the facts I presented make Christian theism more probable than it would be otherwise (which is really all that can be expected of evidence). I'm also confident that reasonable and relatively objective people can make up their own minds quite apart from sweeping, authoritative pronouncements from either you or me, so that I would encourage readers to investigate both sides of the issue further if they are so inclined.

I agree 100%

You're confident that God exists? Well then my work is done!

Nope. I agree that you are convinced / confident. I also agree that people can make up their own minds. I further agree with encouraging readers to investigate both sides. Most have been bombarded with religious propaganda for a lifetime, and many are not aware of contrary arguments.

Here is your chance to prove me wrong to the viewers of this thread (2335 so far). Lay out the verifiable evidence. Show readers that you speak truth and accuracy.

Wait a minute. I have confessed more than once that the facts I presented were not enough to convince you that there is evidence for Christianity.

Notice that I said 'show readers' – not show me

I will go one further and confess that as far as you are concerned, I don't believe I could ever, not even in principle, provide any evidence whatsoever for the truth of Christianity.

Agree. You have presented nothing that even suggests to me as being proof of Christianity.

Likewise, I understand that the information I present is unlikely to penetrate the defenses of those heavily invested in believing in 'gods'.

However, my intent here is NOT to have any influence upon fervent believers – but rather to present ideas for READERS to consider and to compare with what is presented by Apologists.

Not the teensiest scrap, shred, iota or scintilla. Okay? So it's a bit irritating (I can only hope not irritating by design) when I then ask for evidence to support your own claim, and all you can do is mechanically turn around and ask me again to show evidence for Christianity.

Exactly and precisely is my 'own claim' to which you refer? Quote me verbatim making the claim to which you refer and provide URL.

To this point this discussion was mildly interesting. But now you're simply parroting the same line repeatedly for its rhetorical/polemical punch even where it's completely out of place. To me it's kind of like a guy who drops F-bombs in every sentence to sound tough. After a while he sounds less like a tough guy and more like a guy who just uses the F-word far too often.

It is not surprising when Apologists realize that they cannot answer challenges to their claims and stories with verifiable evidence – and begin to complain about other debaters.

From all this, I can only conclude that you do not believe in anything with enough confidence or conviction to actually defend it in a public forum.

Correction: I state a firm conviction that the Earth was not flooded 'to the tops of mountains' based on a background in geology, hydrology, and meteorology. I also state that the Earth does not / did not stop rotating (and cite abundant verifiable evidence from physics in support). I state that upon death human bodies undergo decomposition that is not reversible (and cite verifiable evidence from forensic biology in support). I state that donkeys and snakes do not speak in human language (except in cartoons, movies, and religious tales).

The only rebuttal has been 'Well it happened once upon a time far away because this book says so' or 'You can't prove it didn't happen (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam).'

There is no requirement to defend 'I don't believe your god tales'.

Further, I do not claim to know what I do not know – in marked contrast to those who claim to KNOW the origin of the universe or of life (after reading all about it in an ancient book written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night).

That being the case, I don't think it's an especially significant or interesting matter for debate that you don't believe in God either.

Opinion noted. My intent in these debates is not to express my belief or disbelief – but to present readers with views that challenge made by Apologists purporting to know about 'gods', origin of the universe, beginning of life.

I trust that thinking readers have learned to discount 'Take my word for it (or his or this book)' and testimonials about psychotic experience, and philosophical musings – that are the total of 'evidence' presented in favor of worshiping one of the proposed 'gods'.

Unless and until you are willing to set forth any of your own beliefs and defend any of your own claims (with "verifiable evidence"), that wraps up my part in this thread.

My position is clearly stated in signature that appears on every post – “ANY of the thousands of ‘gods’ proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist – awaiting verifiable evidence�

One last thing, though: I fear that the nature of my dispute (not with atheism per se but with your particular approach to the issue) led me to some overly personal and possibly offensive remarks. For that I apologize; I probably could have worded things a little less so with some effort. I do thank you for the discussion and leave you the last word.

Big of you to say that. No apology necessary.

Don't go away . . . I sure don't want 'the last word'.

[Overcomer]

Don McIntosh wrote in response to Zzyzx:

I have confessed more than once that the facts I presented were not enough to convince you that there is evidence for Christianity. I will go one further and confess that as far as you are concerned, I don't believe I could ever, not even in principle, provide any evidence whatsoever for the truth of Christianity.

You bring up an excellent point, Don. It isn't that there is no evidence for the truth of Christianity and its claims. There is all kinds of it (historical, philosophical, experiential) and all kinds of arguments for the existence of God (axiological, cosmological, teleological, etc.). Rather, it's the fact that some people will dismiss it all, sometimes without being able to refute any of it.

I actually have no problem with the atheist who says he has heard the arguments, doesn't find them compelling and is able to provide valid responses to them. But I do have a problem with those who say there is no evidence or who acknowledge there is evidence but have no interest in considering it or responding to it. Both practice a frustrating obscurantism.

There are some people who simply will never believe for whatever reasons that seem justifiable to them. But presenting the kinds of information you have provided, Don, is still necessary given the number of people who frequent this forum and read through these threads. Someone will take it to heart.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 105 by Overcomer]

It isn't that there is no evidence for the truth of Christianity and its claims. There is all kinds of it (historical, philosophical, experiential) and all kinds of arguments for the existence of God (axiological, cosmological, teleological, etc.). Rather, it's the fact that some people will dismiss it all, sometimes without being able to refute any of it.

No. It has been addressed and refuted ad nauseam. History, philosophy, personal experiences and arguments do not constitute empirical evidence for the existence of any gods. If it is to be regarded as evidence at all, then it is on the lowest level possible. Believers use it because they have nothing else and when it fails to convince they invariably fall back on faith. Religious beliefs are inculcated through indoctrination rather than through rational processes involving analysis of the available evidence. The latter is merely a post hoc attempt to somehow justify the beliefs that are already held.

[Zzyzx]

.

It isn't that there is no evidence for the truth of Christianity and its claims. There is all kinds of it (historical, philosophical, experiential) and all kinds of arguments for the existence of God (axiological, cosmological, teleological, etc.). Rather, it's the fact that some people will dismiss it all, sometimes without being able to refute any of it.

No. It has been addressed and refuted ad nauseam. History, philosophy, personal experiences and arguments do not constitute empirical evidence for the existence of any gods. If it is to be regarded as evidence at all, then it is on the lowest level possible. Believers use it because they have nothing else and when it fails to convince they invariably fall back on faith. Religious beliefs are inculcated through indoctrination rather than through rational processes involving analysis of the available evidence. The latter is merely a post hoc attempt to somehow justify the beliefs that are already held.

Excellent summation.

Yes, the 'evidence' offered for existence of 'gods' is, as you say, “on the lowest level possible� – nothing verifiable, anecdote, testimonial, folklore, ancient opinions and stories, etc.


“If you don't accept my ancient texts, here are some philosophical ponderings that might convince the gullible. If you still have questions or doubts, just believe so you can go to heaven after you die.�

[Difflugia]

Yes, the 'evidence' offered for existence of 'gods' is, as you say, “on the lowest level possible� – nothing verifiable, anecdote, testimonial, folklore, ancient opinions and stories, etc.

“If you don't accept my ancient texts, here are some philosophical ponderings that might convince the gullible. If you still have questions or doubts, just believe so you can go to heaven after you die.�

Seasoned with just a pinch of Creationist science denial.

I think you're confusing "mountain of evidence for 13.8 billion years of natural processes requiring no gods" with "multitude of brilliant scientists and intellectuals who are convinced that naturalism is true" – two different notions altogether. But maybe I am behind the times. Is there now an evidentially supported theory for the evolution of the Sun or the Earth? Did someone finally come up with a coherent and robust theory of abiogenesis, or a demonstrable mechanism for macroevolution, while I've been distracted with my religious devotions?

[Don McIntosh]

Don McIntosh wrote in response to Zzyzx:

I have confessed more than once that the facts I presented were not enough to convince you that there is evidence for Christianity. I will go one further and confess that as far as you are concerned, I don't believe I could ever, not even in principle, provide any evidence whatsoever for the truth of Christianity.

You bring up an excellent point, Don. It isn't that there is no evidence for the truth of Christianity and its claims. There is all kinds of it (historical, philosophical, experiential) and all kinds of arguments for the existence of God (axiological, cosmological, teleological, etc.). Rather, it's the fact that some people will dismiss it all, sometimes without being able to refute any of it.

I actually have no problem with the atheist who says he has heard the arguments, doesn't find them compelling and is able to provide valid responses to them. But I do have a problem with those who say there is no evidence or who acknowledge there is evidence but have no interest in considering it or responding to it. Both practice a frustrating obscurantism.

There are some people who simply will never believe for whatever reasons that seem justifiable to them. But presenting the kinds of information you have provided, Don, is still necessary given the number of people who frequent this forum and read through these threads. Someone will take it to heart.

Thanks for your comments, Overcomer.

I agree, in that I've had productive and interesting dialogues with atheists who understand that there is good evidence for Christian belief but who consider that evidence on balance to be either too weak to justify the belief against our background knowledge of the world, or weak compared to competing views of the world (like scientific naturalism, say, or Islam or Hinduism).

As far as this thread is concerned, the question for me is not so much whether you and I can provide any good evidence – that is, historical, archaeological, cosmological, biological, etc., facts that are publicly accessible (independently verifiable by definition) and which increase the probability that the hypothesis in question (Christian theism) is true or correct. Clearly we can. The question for me is whether there is any evidence so powerful that it forces all observers to acknowledge it as good evidence in the first place. Far as I can tell there is no such evidence, for Christian theism or for any hypothesis whatsoever.

[Don McIntosh]

Don't go away . . . I sure don't want 'the last word'.

Thanks for inviting me back for more ridicule, Z. Lol.

You will recall that I accepted defeat in my attempt to convince you personally that there is any evidence – sorry, verifiable evidence – for the truth of Christian theism. I then challenged you repeatedly to provide evidence for your claim that I had not provided verifiable evidence for Christian theism, and when I finally concluded that you simply had no defensible beliefs or convictions at all, you offered this "correction":

I state a firm conviction that the Earth was not flooded 'to the tops of mountains' based on a background in geology, hydrology, and meteorology. I also state that the Earth does not / did not stop rotating (and cite abundant verifiable evidence from physics in support). I state that upon death human bodies undergo decomposition that is not reversible (and cite verifiable evidence from forensic biology in support). I state that donkeys and snakes do not speak in human language (except in cartoons, movies, and religious tales).

Unfortunately, none of this tells us much about what your own convictions might be, in that these are little more than some negative assertions ("was not" / "does not" / "did not" / "is not") about the convictions of Christians. But it's is a step in the right direction, I guess, and as you've said to me a few times, it's a great opportunity for you to prove me wrong. Given your implicit suggestion that evidence is required to justify a belief, it seems reasonable that you could provide evidence that Jesus did not resurrect, that Balaam's donkey did not talk, and that no flood has ever reached to the tops of the highest mountains.

Also it's worth noting that your position at this point appears to move well beyond "awaiting any verifiable evidence," as something more like "awaiting evidence sufficient to overcome my present set of firm convictions." Those are two different concepts. One at least sounds objective in principle; the other is overtly biased. I've mentioned before that no amount of evidence can override a strong confirmation bias, and that confirmation bias has been shown in numerous studies to be prevalent among human beings generally, nonbelieving scientists right along with churchgoing Christians. You may believe so strongly and firmly that every human in history upon death has undergone an irreversible decomposition process, for example, that strictly no evidence for a resurrection could sway you even in principle.

We seem to agree, at least, that there is evidence to indicate that the vast majority of human bodies undergo decomposition that is not presently reversible, that the vast majority of donkeys do not converse in human languages, and that a considerable if not vast majority of geologists share your conviction that the Earth was never flooded to the tops of the mountains. We only differ, then, in that I believe that Jesus Christ, unlike most men, resurrected, that Balaam's donkey, unlike most donkeys, spoke on a single occasion, and that given the history of theoretical science, it’s not implausible to suspect that the majority of geologists are simply wrong about the Flood.

Now I don't think your task will be an easy one, as it's generally thought difficult to prove a negative. So for example, to demonstrate that no donkeys converse in human language would require observation of all donkeys at all times everywhere. Otherwise there might be a remote island somewhere on which donkeys converse fluently in Latin while sipping tea and riding in rickshaws powered by their human slaves. Or it may be that donkeys are shy and clam up whenever humans come around, then resume their conversations only when they're sure no one else can hear them. The point is that any number of donkeys, even a huge number, that have never been observed to talk would not in itself be evidence sufficient to overcome good evidence for a much smaller number of their more chatty cousins. And I'm only talking about a single talking donkey! (This sort of situation, by the way, is why scientific theories are only provisionally confirmed and always subject to potential falsification: while no number of non-talking donkeys can prove the theory that donkeys never talk, just one well-documented instance of a talking donkey is enough to falsify the theory completely.)

The only rebuttal has been 'Well it happened once upon a time far away because this book says so' or 'You can't prove it didn't happen (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam).'

Talk about straw men. I for one don't recall arguing that something happened "because a book says so." As for the argument from ignorance, it can be employed two ways: not just, "You can't prove it didn't happen," but also "It didn't happen because you can't prove it." Thus both forms of argument below are fallacious:

There is no evidence that Jesus did not resurrect.
Therefore Jesus resurrected.

There is no evidence that Jesus resurrected.
Therefore Jesus did not resurrect.

While I would reject both forms of argument (even if were to agree that there is no evidence either for or against the resurrection), I would say you appear to affirm something similar to the latter form, and that without the slightest attempt to demonstrate the truth of the premise.