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

This will be a waste of time. I won't change my position. I will not call these facts because I don't know what happened.

So, hopefully I'm connecting the dots correctly (since you didn't quote the last part of my post) and this means that even if the case's logic was valid you would just say the premises/facts it is built upon are probably false. And that you refuse to change your view there even without hearing the actual cases historical scholars make for those being the most probable facts of history. Then it would obviously be a waste of your time to go farther. If anyone else is following along and feels that they can get past this step I will gladly continue the discussion with them.

[The Tanager]

3. The effect of sin

No. It's either contradictory, or it's improbable. "False and improbable" and "true but improbable" are both part of "improbable". You are creating an arbitrary third category.

So the categories I was talking about could be termed this way. Either Christianity is (a) coherent and true, (b) coherent and false or (c) incoherent and false.

When did I say it's false because it's improbable?

I said "If..." but thought you were falling into (C). I tried to mention all the options I could think of in case I misunderstood you.

Then you're back peddling because you admitted that everyone "choosing oatmeal" (as our analogy was at the time) was "staggeringly low". If you're going to change your mind on this then I'm just going to stop discussing this with you.

For the last time, that post was about assuming your logic and analyzing it. In other posts on multiple ocassions I talked about this very same critique, which found fault with your logic instead of assuming it to talk about a different fault.

If your response is going to be "oh no I messed up, let me just change everything I've said" then I'm done. Frankly, I don't see the point of discussing section 3 any further. I have nothing else to say on the matter.

That's not my response. But if you want to speculate on that to maintain your belief then you are not being rational even if you have reached the correct conclusion.

[The Tanager]

4. An analysis of one analogy of the Christian solution.

Nothing more to say on this but to thank you once again for your engagement on this thread.

[Justin108]

And that you refuse to change your view there even without hearing the actual cases historical scholars make for those being the most probable facts of history.

By "change my view" you mean that I should make a knowledge claim about something I cannot possibly know?

Then it would obviously be a waste of your time to go farther. If anyone else is following along and feels that they can get past this step I will gladly continue the discussion with them.

Fine. Then you've failed to present a rational argument for the Christian God and as you agreed in post 282, you can no longer make the claim that I have a choice in believing in the Christian God.

[Justin108]

3. The effect of sin

No. It's either contradictory, or it's improbable. "False and improbable" and "true but improbable" are both part of "improbable". You are creating an arbitrary third category.

So the categories I was talking about could be termed this way. Either Christianity is (a) coherent and true, (b) coherent and false or (c) incoherent and false.

When did I say it's false because it's improbable?

I said "If..." but thought you were falling into (C). I tried to mention all the options I could think of in case I misunderstood you.

Then you're back peddling because you admitted that everyone "choosing oatmeal" (as our analogy was at the time) was "staggeringly low". If you're going to change your mind on this then I'm just going to stop discussing this with you.

For the last time, that post was about assuming your logic and analyzing it. In other posts on multiple ocassions I talked about this very same critique, which found fault with your logic instead of assuming it to talk about a different fault.

If your response is going to be "oh no I messed up, let me just change everything I've said" then I'm done. Frankly, I don't see the point of discussing section 3 any further. I have nothing else to say on the matter.

That's not my response. But if you want to speculate on that to maintain your belief then you are not being rational even if you have reached the correct conclusion.

Do you actually still have a point left in this section or can we close it as well?

[The Tanager]

2. Radical claims require radical evidence

By "change my view" you mean that I should make a knowledge claim about something I cannot possibly know?

I see no problem in having a reasoned view on what historically happened even though we can't be 100% sure.

Fine. Then you've failed to present a rational argument for the Christian God and as you agreed in post 282, you can no longer make the claim that I have a choice in believing in the Christian God.

I will no longer make that claim to you, but making a rational argument and convincing someone that it is a rational argument are obviously two different things. You seem to believe it fails as a rational argument because of what you believe about historical data (which seems to be that since we can't know for sure that it's true, we can't build an argument upon it). And you said your mind is closed on that; you won't change your position.

If I understood you correctly there, then we disagree on the feature that you think makes the argument fail as a rational argument. I think historical data, even though not 100% certain, is something we can build rational beliefs off from, if the reasoning to those beliefs is rational. I'm not sure why you think (if I understood you correctly) we need 100% certainty. I'm not sure how many things you could actually believe with that standard. Science is out the window among other things.

If I misunderstood you please show me what you meant.

[The Tanager]

3. The effect of sin

Do you actually still have a point left in this section or can we close it as well?

Not other than the four things I said in response to your post that you quoted before responding in the above way. We can end this section there.

[Justin108]

2. Radical claims require radical evidence

By "change my view" you mean that I should make a knowledge claim about something I cannot possibly know?

I see no problem in having a reasoned view on what historically happened even though we can't be 100% sure.

What do you mean by "reasoned view"? Is a reasoned view a claim that we know what happened? Is it an assumption about what happened? Is it something in between? What exactly is a reasoned view on what historically happened?

You seem to believe it fails as a rational argument because of what you believe about historical data

No it didn't fail as a rational argument because you haven't given an argument yet. We're stuck on you wanting to make a knowledge claim about what happened 2000 years ago.

[The Tanager]

What do you mean by "reasoned view"? Is a reasoned view a claim that we know what happened? Is it an assumption about what happened? Is it something in between? What exactly is a reasoned view on what historically happened?

I'm saying, that given the evidence before us, what is the best account of what happened. Not knowledge in the sense of 100% certainty, if that is what you mean. Not assuming it happened, but having actual reasons to think it did (or did not) happen. It's what we have with most historical piece of data. How many gunmen were there at the grassy knoll? Did Caesar cross the Rubicon? No certainty on those, but we have good reasons to think one way or another.

[Justin108]

What do you mean by "reasoned view"? Is a reasoned view a claim that we know what happened? Is it an assumption about what happened? Is it something in between? What exactly is a reasoned view on what historically happened?

I'm saying, that given the evidence before us, what is the best account of what happened. Not knowledge in the sense of 100% certainty, if that is what you mean. Not assuming it happened, but having actual reasons to think it did (or did not) happen.

Very well

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

- I honestly do not know enough to have an opinion about this. If you can convince me then go ahead

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

- I believe this, yes

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

- You would need to clarify what exactly you mean by this. I know Jesus had many followers before his death so that would suggest the Christian movement originated before the (supposed) resurrection