Theistic Reasoning

[bluegreenearth]

There are few things more intellectually dishonest than non-negotiable confidence in a theistic belief. Theists should, at the very least, be willing to acknowledge the possibility that they might be mistaken in their belief regardless of their level of confidence in it. So, if you are a confident theist, do the responsible thing and work with us to help you discover where any logical fallacies or other cognitive errors might exist in the reasoning process you are using justify your religious belief.

This isn't to presume that you haven't already performed this sort of critical analysis yourself or to imply that I or anyone else participating in the peer review process is your intellectual superior. To the contrary, if your reasoning process is demonstrably reliable or superior, then sharing it will do me and the other participants a great intellectual service. Alternatively, if any errors happen to be exposed in your reasoning process, you benefit from the opportunity to correct for those errors and it wouldn't mean your theistic belief is false. Therefore, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose from cooperating.

Now, if your theistic reasoning process is complex and nuanced, it won't be practical to post a lengthy dissertation on this thread. Instead, if possible, try to break-down your reasoning process into discreet components and permit us to evaluate it one step at a time.

Finally, despite my attempt to carefully word this OP in such a way to avoid or mitigate for potential misinterpretations, I'm fairly confident at least one theist is going to post an objection to something I wrote that was not deliberately intended. If you are that theist, please just ask for a clarification before submitting your objection or leveling accusations against me. Thank you.

[Divine Insight]

William: I did not mention anyone in particular disregarded it as a possibility.
Do you regard it as a possibility? If so, then that would be intellectual honesty, yes?

I don't disregard it as an impossibility. How does that help any theistic arguments for deism?

I won't say anything about anyone's honesty or dishonesty, but I will point out that anyone who thinks that leaving something on the table as a possibility could support a conclusion for deism has just displayed a complete inability for any logical reasoning.

Are you forgetting that we'd also need to do the same thing for concepts like the Spaghetti Monster, etc., Leaving things on the table of possibility does nothing to loan them support as being a credible conclusion to jump to.

Keep in mind (or perhaps you aren't paying attention) I'm not arguing for a conclusion of materialism. I'm arguing for an admission of agnosticism on these questions. I consider agnosticism to be the only intellectually honest position to take on anything we don't yet know the answer to.

Would you disagree with this?

If you don't know the truth of something wouldn't agnosticism be the most intellectually honest position to take?

Of if you do want to speculate about something (like deism) wouldn't the most intellectually honest position be to own up to as it being speculation?

Arguing that you have compelling evidence that leads to the conclusion when you don't is intellectual dishonesty. Either that, or it's simply a display of ignorance of logical reasoning, which would probably be the more likely case. In fact, rooting out poor reasoning is the crux of the subject of this thread.

[Divine Insight]

The points I've brought up don't have feelings; insulting them won't make them go away

Thus far all you have proposed is an ill-defined imaginary concept of deism.

Why consider the truth to be an "insult"?

You can't even define your imaginary deity much less produce any evidence for it.

Why should you feel insulted by the truth?

And your imagined deistic entity evades this problem how?

Why does your imagined deistic entity evade all these things you surmise to be true about a material world?

The type of deity I *postulate* does so by not being material.

And yet you can't even define what it means for something to be material?

You position is not compelling.

Based on everything we know (and you even AGREE), if something isn't material then it must not exist. (i.e. it must be nothing)

How do I know that you necessarily AGREE with this? Because the crux of your argument is that you claim that a material world cannot come from "nothing".

Yet, now you are trying to claim that your imagined deistic entity, which by your own arguments, must consist of nothing (i.e. be non-material).
So you are demanding that a material world cannot come from nothing, but that your imagined non-material entity can exist as a state of nothingness in some imagined meaningful way.

How is that supposed to be "logical"?

You're trying to claim to have a logical argument by introducing totally illogical concepts as premises. (i.e. premise - a non-material thing can exist).

But you give no logical explanation of what that would even mean.

I haven't asserted that deism is the only possibility.

In your post in the other thread you pointed to you did. You claimed that you have logically ruled out materialism as being able to explain itself (which by the way you actually haven't) and then used that as an argument to claim that deism is a superior conclusion to jump to.

That's just extremely poor logical reasoning. It's not a compelling logical argument. Any scientist, and even philosophers, will tell you that what you have is non-sequitur reasoning.

The laws of quantum mechanics are part of the cosmos which cannot be its own explanation, so of course I'm including them. You seem to have been grasping at a straw here, hoping that I wasn't.

So what? Who says that they have to be their own explanation, or even have an explanation based on humans think is "logical"?

Quantum Mechanics is already beyond human's ability to comprehend logically. No one can explain it in terms of rational logical reasoning. So why are you demanding that nature must appease human's idea of logic?

Also, your very same argument necessarily also applies to your imagined non-material deistic entity. All you've done is move from something you know exists but cannot be explained over to something you have no evidence for and still cannot explain.

So how can you even think that you have made any progress in terms of logical reasoning?

All you've done is throw your hands in the air and say, "Whatever is going on must be illogical and explainable."

Why should anyone embrace that as sound reasoning?

If you want to claim that it appears that there are no logical rational answers to these questions, then I agree. It certainly appears to be the case.

However, all we have in that situation is agnosticism. Questions that we simply cannot answer due to lack of sufficient information and knowledge.

So why do you resist this obvious truth and want to instead try to make illogical arguments for an imagined deism? How does that do anything other than suggest that you have given up on logical reasoning entirely.

But I've based that proposal on a reasonable conclusion that the previous thing requires an explanation beyond itself.

And Deism doesn't? I don't believe that you have shown this to be the case.

You can't explain materialism and you can't explain deism. All you've done was move from one unexplained arena to another. No progress has been made. Yet you appear to want to claim that you have made progress to rule materialism out.

The problem is that the very reason you have ruled materialism out continues to plague you new concept of deism. So you're still in the same sinking boat. All you've done is rename the boat. But it's still sinking.

We can describe a universe in which there is a level of positive energy and a level of negative energy, and where the difference *between* those levels is zero ( they balance). "Zero" energy isn't the same as *no* energy.

And your proposed deistic entity is supposed to represent "*no* energy?

In what sense does it exist then?

They "cannot explain why gravity and energy form in the first place". Why? Because gravity and energy are part of the cosmos, which cannot explain itself.

In other words, they are in the same boat you're in with your imaginary deism that you cannot explain?

Everything you complain about them applies to your proposal as well. So you're actually complaining about your own ideas apparently without even realizing it.

And we have to be careful about putting our faith in mathematical models:

I agree, and I have a lot to say on that topic. But I'll save that for a book.

But at the same time we need to careful about putting our faith in an imagined non-material entity that we cannot explain. Especially if the reason we got to that point was because we couldn't explain a material world that we already know exists.

All you've done is move from something you know exists, but cannot explain, to something that you don't know exists and also cannot explain.

How does that amount to progress, or even constitute logical reasoning?

I think it highly unlikely that we will ever know the true nature of reality, but I think it reasonable to conclude from what we do know about reality that the material cosmos isn't all of it.

Again, without even knowing what material is how can you be so sure that there needs to be anything additional?

Until you can explain what constitutes a material world how can you say anything about it at all? Even physicists are still trying to work out exactly what the material world is. Yet you are acting like we already know and that there must be more to it.

You're already jumping off a cliff made of incorrect assumptions to begin with.

And like Richard Feynman would say, "That's better than having answers that may indeed be wrong" No answer is better than having a wrong answer that you can't show to be true.

It depends on what you do with that answer.

We'll if you have accepted an answer as being true when you haven't sufficiently shown this to be the case. Then all that can amount to is self deception.

By the way, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with placing your "faith" in an idea. If you want to believe in deism on faith, by all means please do so.

But that's not how we got into this discussion. We got into this discussion because you claimed to have logical reasoning why materialism cannot be true and therefore deism is more likely.

That's not a faith-based claim. That's a claim of logical reasoning. All I'm doing is pointing out that your logical reasoning in this matter is terribly flawed.

I'm not trying to discourage you from believing in deism on faith.

Quantum fields are physical, which makes them part of the physical cosmos which cannot cause its own existence.

You keep coming back to this. But please explain how your imagined deistic entity can cause its own existence.

You're giving your imagined deistic entity a free pass on the very things you are objecting to concerning a physical reality.

If you could explain how your deistic entity has found a way around this perhaps we can learn how a physical reality might have also found a way around this.

And what about your imagined deistic entity? What if it turned out to be true and when you asked it, it confessed that it cannot explain it's own existence. What then?

It would make you feel better....

Hardly but this is a question that I have pondered for many years. I have spend much time trying to comprehend how any entity might be able to explain its own existence.

If you would spend as much time considering how a deistic entity could explain its own existence as you do considering why a materialistic world cannot explain its own existence I'm willing to bet that you'd be far more hesitant to suggest that a deistic entity makes anymore sense than a material world.

Have you ever stopped to think about how a "God" could possibly explain its own existence?

Frequently, as I indicated several posts back. However, since the observable universe is possible to understand, the impossibility of its explaining its own existence is possible to understand.

Who understands the observable universe?

That's a new one on me. I think much of your problem may be that you simply think more is known about the observable universe than is actually known.

There is nothing logical about a non-physical entity even existing, much less having any level of complexity.

There is when a purely physical alternative has been eliminated.

But you haven't eliminated a purely physical alternative. You only think you have. That's an error in your logical reasoning right there. You're starting with a premise that hasn't yet been established.

Your premises assumes that the scientific community as a whole has thrown their hands up in the air proclaiming, "We've concluded that the universe can never be explained".

They haven't done that. To the contrary they have tons of ideas that they are still looking at.

I'm recognizing that a material universe being the cause of its own existence defies logic. Therefore, I conclude that the existence of something beyond the material is logical.

But that's not logical reasoning.

All you're really doing is saying that the universe appears to be illogical, therefore something illogical must exist that brought the universe into being.

That's not a logical argument. That's an argument that demands that logic itself is meaningless and must be abandoned entirely.

Also, where's the justification that the conclusion should be that whatever illogical thing exists that caused the universe to spring into existence, must be conscious, intelligence, or be associated with deism at all?

Why not postulate just some stupid mindless illogical thing?

Garrett Lisi has proposed the existence of a simple 8-dimensional manifold that he proposes can indeed explain the entire material world. So then we'd have a physical world that explains itself.

Now you would then argue, but how does the 8-dimensional manifold explain its existence?

Well, why ask this about a primal 8-dimensional manifold, but NOT of an imagined deistic entity?

You want to leave your imagined deistic entity off the hook from having to answer this question. But why?

If you can't imagine how an 8-dimensional manifold can exist for no good reason, then why are you so anxious to accept that a far more complex deistic entity could exist for no good reason?

You're entire line of argument is totally dependent on your proposed deistic entity not having to explain its own existence. Yet, not being able to be the explanation for their own existence is precisely why you have ruled out everything else.

How can you not see the folly of your own reasoning?

[Divine Insight]

Science is the study of cause and effect, so if you're going to stop short at saying that the universe "just is", you may as well admit that you yourself are placing the universe outside the realm of science.

Not true. Science is NOT the study of cause and effect.

Science is based on observing the behavior of the universe and trying to explain it in whatever way that makes consistent sense. In fact, science doesn't even demand consistency. Consistency is simply a property that we observe. It's also a property that simply must exist lest we wouldn't. In other words, we wouldn't be here to observe a universe that is not consistent.

Cause and effect are simply properties that we observe. We also only observe the property of cause and effect on the macro scale of things. Once we get down to the quantum scale cause and effect appear to no longer apply. At least not in easily explained ways.

Would we then say that science no longer applies to the quantum world? I think not. Science is based on observing the behavior of the universe and trying to explain it in whatever way that makes sense to us. Fortunately for us the universe tends to be consistent in its behavior. Even behaviors that are mathematically probabilistic behave consistently in terms of those probabilities.

But no, there is nothing in science that demands that everything must have a cause. Not at all. If something that has no cause is observed that's science.

Science accepts that virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time. What causes them to do this? Nobody knows. But that doesn't cause science to reject them.

So no, science is not the study of cause and effect. Science is simply the study of the universe. Whatever the universe does science accepts. It doesn't need to have a cause.

Who told you that science is the study of cause and effect? I hope you weren't paying them tuition fees. I'd ask for a refund if that's the case.

[Zzyzx]

.

Yet, now you are trying to claim that your imagined deistic entity, which by your own arguments, must consist of nothing (i.e. be non-material).
So you are demanding that a material world cannot come from nothing, but that your imagined non-material entity can exist as a state of nothingness in some imagined meaningful way.

An imaginary entity can come from nothing and be eternal " whatever one wishes to conger up in their mind. There is no verifiable evidence to indicate such things are anything other than products of a fertile imagination.

That applies equally to spaghetti monsters and all manner of proposed supernatural entities.

[William]

[Replying to post 101]

William: I did not mention anyone in particular disregarded it as a possibility.
Do you regard it as a possibility? If so, then that would be intellectual honesty, yes?

Divine Insight: I don't disregard it as an impossibility.

William: Well that is a start at least. But it also implies that you can also regard it as a possibility.
Would that be correct?

Divine Insight: How does that help any theistic arguments for deism?

William: You confuse me with Athetotheist, who appears to be arguing for deism. I am not arguing for deism.

Divine Insight: Keep in mind I'm not arguing for a conclusion of materialism. I'm arguing for an admission of agnosticism on these questions. I consider agnosticism to be the only intellectually honest position to take on anything we don't yet know the answer to.

William: So do I. As such, I find it important to accept that both materialism (the idea that we exist in a universe which has no creator) and theism (the idea of being within a Creation created by a Creator) are still under trial and require equal hearing.
That - at least to my thinking - is truly the agnostic position on the matter. So I agree it is the only intellectually honest position to continue to assume while we do not know the answer.

Divine Insight: or perhaps you aren't paying attention

William: Or perhaps with that statement, you are projecting hot air.

Divine Insight: If you don't know the truth of something wouldn't agnosticism be the most intellectually honest position to take?

William: Yes it would. The idea of a Creator has not been established as false. Until it is, the only position one can take on that is the agnostic one.

There is no evidence I have yet seen which has shown that we are not presently existing within a Creation. Until such evidence is shown, I remain agnostic, because it is the most intellectually honest position to take on the matter.

Do you agree with this?

Divine Insight: Of if you do want to speculate about something (like deism) wouldn't the most intellectually honest position be to own up to as it being speculation?

William: Are you saying that the idea that we exist in a universe which has no creator is not speculation too? If not, then we are on the same page.

Otherwise I have to inquire as to why you regard the idea of living in a Creation as 'speculation' and the idea of no Creator as 'not speculation', to be the most intellectually honest position.

Divine Insight: Rooting out poor reasoning is the crux of the subject of this thread.

William: Indeed it is. That is why I have been asking questions and pointing out inconsistencies in the arguments presented in this thread.

Some of which, are being ignored altogether.

Silence isn't conducive to rooting out poor reasoning folks. Especially in a thread calling out for intellectual honesty in theists.

Is the same standard not demanded of non-theists contributing to said thread? Or is this simply an example of double standards?

[William]

[Replying to post 96 by ]

Athetotheist:This brings us back to where I started. An explanation for the universe's existence must logically be sought beyond the universe, because invoking any part of the universe itself to explain the universe's existence means that the explanation is part of what has to be explained, which is a circular argument.

William: First, thank you for answering my post.

I suppose that this is a particular deist belief you are arguing from?

There are other posts I have made in arguing against points you have made, that you have not noticed or perhaps purposefully ignored, or maybe not understood so have skipped, which show that your position on the matter is not entirely correct.

Unless your particular deist position is that The Creator created the universe but has absolutely no interaction with the universe, then there must be at least hints that we are existing within a Creation, to be found within the Creation itself.

In order for those hints to exist, the Creator(s) would have to have some kind of participation with the Creation, rather than simply be invisible non-interacting ideas of Creator(s).
Even that you state "must logically be sought beyond the universe" how can this be done by us who are within the universe? It is not logically possible to be able to do so.

If we cannot find any hint of a Creator within the universe, there is no logical reason to assume that there is a Creator and that we exist within a Creation of a Creator/Creators.

So - in that - I am not saying that such hints do not exist. Rather I am attempting to point out that finding them within the universe is not of itself circular argument. Just because they are within the universe does not mean that they cannot be seen to be relevant to the idea of their being a Creator, and the universe being a Creation.

Thus, invoking any part of the universe itself to help explain the universe's existence means that the explanation is part of what has to be explained, even if that means those parts help point to a Creator.

That seems logical to me anyway. If we cannot detect any hint of a Creators signature within the universe, then we can deduce it unlikely any creator was involved.

There would be no point - no logic - in assuming that a creator exists.

And finally, I am a theist. This means that I see in the same evidence the materialist points to to claim their is no Creator, actually hints of a Creator.
Thus, all that is different in that, is not the evidence itself, but rather, how the evidence is interpreted.

[benchwarmer]

Why can we not simply stop at "the energy that makes up the current universe has always existed in some form".

For the same reason we can't stop at "The sun comes up over here and goes down over there."

Science is the study of cause and effect, so if you're going to stop short at saying that the universe "just is", you may as well admit that you yourself are placing the universe outside the realm of science.

Well, your definition of science is wrong, so I have no need to admit your conclusion.

Science is about observation and deriving verifiable knowledge from that observation. I can observe the universe and verify things about it so it seems squarely in the realm of science. How about your 'ever existing creator'? Any verifiable data about that?

[otseng]

Science is about observation and deriving verifiable knowledge from that observation. I can observe the universe and verify things about it so it seems squarely in the realm of science. How about your 'ever existing creator'? Any verifiable data about that?

Science assumes methodological naturalism. So, it rules out entertaining anything supernatural. So, technically "science" would not be able to make any claims about whether things exist or do not exist in the supernatural world.

However, having said that, I do believe we can make inferences that a supernatural entity exists based on empirical evidence.

We can also use philosophical arguments to justify the belief in a creator, such as what William noted:

Coincidence involving so-called 'dumb luck' should not be able to exist in a universe devoid of a mindful Creator. Language should not be able to be shown to be mathematically based. Math itself should not even exist as a device which can help us decipher the universe.

Also, as an aside, can I request people use the "quote" feature to quote people? Some posts are hard to figure out who said what.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 88 by bluegreenearth]

Fact = The earliest manuscripts of the two letters written for Theophilus are anonymous.

Fact= I have never said anything differently.

Fact= This simply means this author did not identify himself to the audience he was addressing at the time.

Fact= Simply because an author does not indemnify himself, would have nothing whatsoever to do with whether what was reported would be true, or false.

Fact= We have very good evidence that the author of these letters would have been the Luke who traveled with Paul.

Fact = Despite their commonalities, there are significant incongruities between the two letter written for Theophilus and the authentic Pauline letters. Pauls character, his theology, and various events from his life are described differently in the letters to Theophilus than they are from Paul's own autobiographical accounts. They also depart from each other on important issues such as the Law, Pauls own apostleship, and Paul's association with the Jerusalem church.

Fact= This is what one would expect, when you have different folks reporting on the same things, and if they report exactly the same with no variations then this would be a reason to suspect collusion.

Fact= There are times in which folks misinterpret what is being said, and when, and if there is further evidence to come in, they can see the differences would not be what they once thought.

Fact = Paul warned his followers to beware of false doctrines being spread by men masquerading as apostles of Christ.

Fact= I have no idea what this would have to do with anything?

Fact = The authentic Pauline letters are the earliest sources for the resurrection claim and predate all subsequent New Testament accounts by several decades.

Fact= I have no idea what this would have to do with anything?

Fact= There are those who give their opinion on when these things were written, but in the end, it is only opinion, and not everyone agrees.

Fact= We have very good evidence that the author of the letters to Theophilus did indeed travel with Paul, which would clearly indicate that he would have written these letters inside the lifetime of the Apostles.

Fact= There are scholars who simply ignore this evidence, and date these two letters in the 80's-90's, when it is very possible, and even likely they would have been written before 70 AD, and there are some scholars who hold this position.

Fact = The authentic Pauline letters do not describe what happened to the body of Jesus after he was killed except to indicate it was buried.

Fact= We have very good evidence to support the fact that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have known the original Apostles along with the claims they were making, and the reports spoke of an empty tomb.

Fact= We have very good evidence that this author would have traveled with Paul for decades.

Fact= Paul does mention the body of Jesus being buried, and then goes on to speak of Jesus being resurrected.

Fact = Rabbinic law specifies that criminals were to be buried in a common grave, not a tomb.

True!

Fact = If the body of a criminal was initially placed in a tomb to comply with the Jewish preparations for Passover, it would have only been a temporary arrangement until the body could be reburied in a common grave as required by Rabbinic Law.

True!

Fact= It is reported that when those went up to the tomb to take are of the body, it was not there to be taken care of.

Fact= It would have been a major task for anyone to have stolen the body without others noticing.

Fact= There were certainly those opposed to these reports, and all they would have had to do would be to produce a body.

Fact = Paul uses the Greek word, -, to describe Jesus as appearing to him and the other apostles. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, when "-" is used in this type of context, it refers to a divine revelation where someone experiences a spiritual presence of Jesus without actually observing his natural body made of flesh and bone.

Fact= The report concerning Thomas doubting, and his ability to handle the body of Jesus, along with the reports of Jesus eating, demonstrate clearly that we are referring to a physical body.

Luke 24:29-33
See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, Have you anything here to eat? They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them.

Fact= This was done to clearly demonstrate that it would have been the physical body.

Fact= If it were only referring to a spiritual body, then there would be no need in referring to an empty tomb.

Fact= The passage above, is written by the author of the letters to Theophilus, in which we have very good evidence for the fact that this author would have traveled with Paul for decades, and would have been alive at the time of Jesus.

Fact= The facts you have provided in no way demonstrates, that Paul would have only been referring to a spiritual body, and the other facts we have examined makes it very unlikely to be the case.

Fact = Paul asserts that a buried natural body made from bulky flesh and bones is perishable, and it is only the refined physical body which is resurrected.

Fact= As stated above, with the other evidence we have, it would be very unlikely that Paul would have only been referring to a spiritual body.

Fact = Dehydration, heat exhaustion, heat stroke, physical exhaustion, led poisoning, malnutrition, sleep deprivation, and other medical conditions are known to trigger auditory and visual hallucinations in otherwise psychologically healthy people.

Fact= We have no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that any of these folks who report these events, suffered from any of the above.

Fact= We have very good evidence that several of these folks continued to proclaim these things well into their old age.

Fact= The fact that folks such as yourself attempt to come up with other possible explanations clearly demonstrates there are facts, and evidence in support of the claims, otherwise there would be no need in these other possible explanations, in order to attempt to explain away the facts we have.

Fact = There are altered psychological states which can be brought about through intense and lengthy meditation or prayer sessions where practitioners, who are otherwise psychologically healthy people, regularly experience auditory and visual hallucinations.

Question= What evidence do we have which may support the idea that this is what would have caused the reports we have?

Fact = Descriptions of personal experiences often becomes more and more embellished the more they are recounted from memory.

Fact= We have very good evidence to support the fact that the Apostles were reporting a resurrection immediately after the tomb was found to be empty.

Fact = People often misremember personal experiences when they haven't thought about them in a while.

Fact= We have very good evidence to suggest that Paul, and the author of the letters to Theophilus were thinking about these things most everyday, as they were traveling the known world at the time, planting Churches, and continuing to write about these very things as they went.

Fact = When appropriately primed and motivated by a prescribed religious expectation, subliminal message, or an emotional crisis brought about through a shared traumatic event, it is common for a group of like-minded and psychologically healthy people to experience a kind of hypnotic and highly suggestive trance state while engaged in lengthy and intense meditation or prayer sessions.

Fact= These folks not only proclaim a resurrection, they go on to tell about the life of Jesus, and many of these stories are filled with theological content, of which I have great examples.

Question= Are we to suppose that these things as well would have been the result of " subliminal message, or an emotional crisis brought about through a shared traumatic event, it is common for a group of like-minded and psychologically healthy people to experience a kind of hypnotic and highly suggestive trance state while engaged in lengthy and intense meditation or prayer sessions"?

Fact = There exists a form of psychological manipulation where group pressure to achieve a desired personal experience commonly influences participants to exaggerate or fabricate their individual experiences in order to conform with the group's expectations.

Fact= The only way we know this to be true, is because there have been those who admitted such things, and, or, the stories begin to be changed, altered, and, or, we have those who may recant.

Fact= We never hear a word of any of these folks "changing, altering, or recanting" their stories, and we have those who continue to proclaim these very same things well into their old age.

I think I have covered them all now, and the bottom line is, while all the things above may indeed be possibilities, they would not be things which have been demonstrated to be facts, which would explain the facts, and evidence we have concerning the resurrection.

However, what these things do in fact demonstrate is, we have facts, and evidence in support of the resurrection, and those opposed clearly understand this, which is exactly why they understand that they must, and have to attempt to explain away the evidence we have, otherwise, there would be no need in attempting to come up with these other possible scenarios, in order to explain away the facts, and evidence we have.

Moreover, it is very easy to throw these other possible scenarios out there. It is quite another for one to actually sit down in order to think about what all would have to be involved, in order for these other scenarios to actually be possible. If one were to do this, they may in fact discover that these other "POSSIBLE" explanations, are just as incredible as what they are attempting to explain away?

In the end I do not insist that these other scenarios are not possible. However, I would ask, what evidence would we have to support any of these other scenarios as being the actual case?

I do not insist that you would have no reason to believe these other possible explanations may be the case. What I do insist is, none of the other possible explanations eliminate the fact that there would be reasons to believe the reports.

[Divine Insight]

Well that is a start at least. But it also implies that you can also regard it as a possibility. Would that be correct?

I have an open mind toward everything that has not yet been shown to be false. This has always been true so it's hardly a "start".

But having an open mind toward something is hardly evidence for its existence. So where do you think you're going with this conversation?

Divine Insight: How does that help any theistic arguments for deism?

William: You confuse me with Athetotheist, who appears to be arguing for deism. I am not arguing for deism.

That's news to me. When did you give that up? Or have you taken it over the top to argue for an actual intervening god?

Divine Insight: Keep in mind I'm not arguing for a conclusion of materialism. I'm arguing for an admission of agnosticism on these questions. I consider agnosticism to be the only intellectually honest position to take on anything we don't yet know the answer to.

William: So do I.

So you're for agnosticism now? Welcome aboard!

As such, I find it important to accept that both materialism (the idea that we exist in a universe which has no creator) and theism (the idea of being within a Creation created by a Creator) are still under trial and require equal hearing.

I agree. However being intellectually honest I have no choice but to accept that the evidence for materialism is overwhelming. We at least know beyond any shadow of a doubt that a maternal world exists. Right?

So that's a given. Even if you argue for a hologram, that still requires a material world. You can't have a hologram without some form of material.

On the other hand that is zero evidence for an imagined creator. Therefore if we place these things on 'trial' right now, materialism wins the trial and an imaginary invisible creator is a "No Show".

So that's were we currently stand. Would you not agree?

That - at least to my thinking - is truly the agnostic position on the matter. So I agree it is the only intellectually honest position to continue to assume while we do not know the answer.

I think you're trying to twist agnosticism in favor on the unknown. Agnosticism means "without knowledge". We have knowledge a a material world. So we don't need to be agnostic with respect to materialism. We know that a material world exists. In fact, you keep referring to a "Creator". Why? Obviously because you would like to imagine a "Creator" of the material world. So even your hypothesis of the existence of a creator is dependent upon your acceptance of the existence of a material world.

So we don't need to be agnostic with respect to a material world. We already know that a material world exists. Where the agnosticism lies is in the question of how the material world might have come to be.

So our lack of knowledge of materialism and deism (or any other imaginary spiritual essence to reality) are not equally absence. Only the latter are we truly agnostic about. And we even know with confidence that tales of gods are clearly false because those tales have exposed their own logical contradictory claims.

So if you're trying to put materialism and an imagined spiritual world of nothingness on equal footing then you aren't addressing these topics with the intellectual honesty that the OP of this thread is attempting to address.

Divine Insight: or perhaps you aren't paying attention

William: Or perhaps with that statement, you are projecting hot air.

You aren't showing signs of paying attention since you continually jump to incorrect conclusion, many of which have already been demonstrated to be false.

In fact, you are denying deism now. Yet that's the exactly the conversation that you interjected yourself into. I was addressing Athetotheist's claim about deism. And you started quoting my posts on that topic. But now you want to change the subject entirely. What's up with that?

Divine Insight: If you don't know the truth of something wouldn't agnosticism be the most intellectually honest position to take?

William: Yes it would. The idea of a Creator has not been established as false. Until it is, the only position one can take on that is the agnostic one.

I agree. However the same cannot be said for materialism. We know that a material world exists. You wouldn't be proposing a "Creator" unless you already knew that a material world exists that, you claim, would need to be created.

So it's only the idea of a Creator that requires the agnostic position. Not the concept of a material world that we already know exists.

There is no evidence I have yet seen which has shown that we are not presently existing within a Creation. Until such evidence is shown, I remain agnostic, because it is the most intellectually honest position to take on the matter.

Do you agree with this?

Yes. But what does agnostic mean? It means that you don't have any knowledge of the existence of any Creator. We don't have any knowledge of the existence of a boogieman either. So you may as well be talking about a boogieman.

The fact that you keep calling your boogieman a "Creator" shows that you have already accepted that a material world exists. So you clearly are not agnostic with respect to the existence of a material world.

Divine Insight: Of if you do want to speculate about something (like deism) wouldn't the most intellectually honest position be to own up to as it being speculation?

William: Are you saying that the idea that we exist in a universe which has no creator is not speculation too? If not, then we are on the same page.

Where has anyone made such a claim?

Are you claiming that we exist in a universe in which there are no boogiemen?

Of course, not. Clearly you don't seem to understand the difference between not having any evidence for the existence of something and claiming that it doesn't exist.

You're arguing against ideas that no secularists would even support.

This goes back to the question of whether you're paying attention to what the secularists are actually saying. You keep talking like as if they are taking positions they aren't taking.

Otherwise I have to inquire as to why you regard the idea of living in a Creation as 'speculation' and the idea of no Creator as 'not speculation', to be the most intellectually honest position.

Because we don't need to speculate that there is no evidence for something when there is no evidence for it.

Think about that for a while because you keep making this same mistake over and over again.

Divine Insight: Rooting out poor reasoning is the crux of the subject of this thread.

William: Indeed it is. That is why I have been asking questions and pointing out inconsistencies in the arguments presented in this thread.

Some of which, are being ignored altogether.

But you haven't pointed out any inconsistencies in the arguments of secularists. All you've done thus far is demonstrate that you don't understand what agnosticism actually means and what it applies to.

Proclaiming that things exist for which there is no evidence is indeed speculation.

Pointing out that there is no evidence for those things does not require any speculation at all.

Silence isn't conducive to rooting out poor reasoning folks. Especially in a thread calling out for intellectual honesty in theists.

Do you consider yourself to be a theist?

If so then answer the following questions?

Do we need to speculate that a material world exists?

Does knowing that a material world exists = agnosticism with respect to the existence of a material world?

If you claim that we can't know that a material world exists then, as a theist, why would you suggest the need for a "Creator". What is a creator needed for if there is no material world that needs to be created?

Are you attempting to argue that things that cannot be known should be treated as though they are on the same footing with things that we clearly do know?

Finally what's the difference between a "god" and a "boogieman" other than the spelling of these words?

Is the same standard not demanded of non-theists contributing to said thread? Or is this simply an example of double standards?

I don't see any double standards here. Please point to a non-theist in this thread who is proposing that we should jump to any conclusions for which there is absolutely no evidence?

I didn't see any.