Burden of Answers

[liamconnor]

Both sides have questions which they want satisfactory answers; but are all questions fare?

For instance, many questions raised against Christians are clearly subjective, since they deal with what we might call the 'psychology of God': i.e., Why did Jesus only show himself to his closest disciples? Why did God not immediately eradicate sin within minutes of the so-called Fall? Why choose one man (Abraham) to concentrate on and not communicate universally to all men?

And some Christians require of atheists natural explanations for every aspect of reality: i.e., where does our sense of objective morality come from (note: when they ask this, they are not asking for the origins of the herd-instinct)? If we are naturally evolved from animal ancestry, how did our senses become so dull? How is it that each evolvement of a species consisted in a myriad of changes coinciding simultaneously and compatibly? How is it that we alone have Reason? If the Big Bang happened, what caused it?

(in my experience, a number of atheists here will 'think' they have an answer to all of the questions posed in the second paragraph. Most scientists, of any persuasion, would demur. At any rate, that is not the question for debate, and if you think you know the answers to all those questions, this debate is probably not for you).

QforD: What (in 'your' opinion) are legitimate, reasonable, demands which the opposite side should satisfy before consenting to, or even simply respecting, their position? Examples: Positing the biblical god, are Christians required to know the thought process behind his every action? Or, are naturalists required to explain what caused the Big Bang, or why it happened in one way and not another?


I am hoping this debate does not turn into a focus on each demand and the evidence (or lack there of) for it; this is about 'reasonable expectations' for finite creatures.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 37 by rikuoamero]

"I thought it obvious. The theist makes the claim that God is loving and compassionate. I retort with the story of Uzzah, who saw the Ark of the Covenant stumbling on the road and puts out a hand to steady it. God's response is to strike him dead.
I don't see "loving" or "compassion" there. Would you call me "loving" or "compassionate" if I struck your brother dead after he puts out a hand to steady my motorbike? Please answer the last question."

From appearance.
It's like saying the man died when lightening struck him to be told by the Doctor that he died from a massive heart attack which no one could 'see'.

I don't understand this response. Please explain yourself a bit better.

Because it appears so to our senses we takie it to be true.
The sun rises in the east, right?
The Bible is written by correspondences, representations, types.

Swedenborg:
And as by "breaches" is signified the falsity which comes into existence by the separation of good from truth, the same is also signified, in the representative sense, by "strengthening and repairing the breaches of the house of Jehovah"

In the second book of Samuel: It grieved David because Jehovah had broken a breach upon Uzzah; therefore he called that place Perez-Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:8); speaking of Uzzah, who died because he touched the ark; by the ark was represented heaven, in the supreme sense the Lord, consequently Divine good; by Uzzah however was represented that which ministers, thus truth, for this ministers to good. The separation above described is signified by the "breach upon Uzzah."

[Kenisaw]

How is it that we alone have Reason?

I wanted to take time out from this interesting discussion to point out this sentence in the OP. Humans are not the only animals that can reason. This has been covered previously in past threads, and perhaps it was written erroneously by the formulator of the OP, but to be safe it is noted here that this is not a true statement.

Carry on fine people.

[Monta]

How is it that we alone have Reason?

I wanted to take time out from this interesting discussion to point out this sentence in the OP. Humans are not the only animals that can reason. This has been covered previously in past threads, and perhaps it was written erroneously by the formulator of the OP, but to be safe it is noted here that this is not a true statement.

Carry on fine people.

The highest thought a human being can have and which sits in the inmost parts of his being, is the thought of a Divine Being.

No animal is capable of this.

[Justin108]

How is it that we alone have Reason?

I wanted to take time out from this interesting discussion to point out this sentence in the OP. Humans are not the only animals that can reason. This has been covered previously in past threads, and perhaps it was written erroneously by the formulator of the OP, but to be safe it is noted here that this is not a true statement.

Carry on fine people.

The highest thought a human being can have and which sits in the inmost parts of his being, is the thought of a Divine Being.

No animal is capable of this.

How do you know what animals are capable of thinking of?

[rikuoamero]

How is it that we alone have Reason?

I wanted to take time out from this interesting discussion to point out this sentence in the OP. Humans are not the only animals that can reason. This has been covered previously in past threads, and perhaps it was written erroneously by the formulator of the OP, but to be safe it is noted here that this is not a true statement.

Carry on fine people.

The highest thought a human being can have and which sits in the inmost parts of his being, is the thought of a Divine Being.

No animal is capable of this.

Okay. So what do you think happened in 1 Kings 17, where Elijah is fed by ravens? Why is it you think the ravens would have done that?

Or in Numbers 22, where Balaam's donkey moves aside for the angel of God?

[liamconnor]

How is it that we alone have Reason?

I wanted to take time out from this interesting discussion to point out this sentence in the OP. Humans are not the only animals that can reason. This has been covered previously in past threads, and perhaps it was written erroneously by the formulator of the OP, but to be safe it is noted here that this is not a true statement.

Carry on fine people.

The highest thought a human being can have and which sits in the inmost parts of his being, is the thought of a Divine Being.

No animal is capable of this.

How do you know what animals are capable of thinking of?

I will assume the question comes from sincerity, and not someone just being difficult. That is, I assume the person thinks there is good evidence that animals enjoy the same mode of consciousness which we do, and are basically rational beings (i.e. capable of more than instinctive reactions but actual 'thoughts') and not someone who, in fact, does not think animals are capable of higher thought, but feels the need to disagree with everything his opponent has to say?

The difficulty facing this person is an explanation for the vasts differences between us and the beasts. It is perhaps an argument from analogy, but it still favors the dichotomist who perceives an almost infinite gap between certain human qualities and their apparent absence in the brutes and insects. I have seen beavers build dams to dwell in, but never a second to pray in. And though I myself find a spider's web beautiful, I have never seen a spider build two: one to prey upon ,and another to gaze upon.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 56 by liamconnor]

I have seen beavers build dams to dwell in, but never a second to pray in.

Maybe animals don't require to build buildings to think about God. Maybe God doesn't require it of them.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 43 by Tired of the Nonsense]

liamconnor wrote:

Incorrect. I take the contents of the bible to be historical data. To be tested. There is much in it I doubt.

How do you test the story of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem? Because the author of Gospel Matthew says so? The author of Gospel Matthew also claims that Herod sent out soldiers to kill all the babies found in the Bethlehem area, in an attempt to eliminate the baby Jesus.

I have made this clear, again and again. Why do I need to believe in these historical claims in order to be a Christian (i.e., believe in the risen Jesus)? Perhaps I doubt these, or hold them neutral, because they lack historical evidence, while I hold other claims, because they have better evidence? I invite you to abandon the straw man argument; or to stop thinking of me as a former 'you', if that is what you are doing.

How do you suggest testing the historicity of the story of Jesus returning to life and then flying away, if not by comparing it common experience and common sense?

This also has been made clear a thousand other times. And each time you return with the same questions and assumptions. This is a red-flag for presuppositionalism, which is not amenable to arguments since it is not a position arrived at by reason but begun with by faith.




First, I approach religious texts from a theistic point of view based on philosophy. I find a general theism to explain human experience better than any non-theistic view. This does not mean I am bias towards miracles; perhaps the power behind the universe is not that kind of being. But nor am I bias against them.

Now, the question of someone coming back to dead and being assumed into another dimension of being in a manner that involves vertical ascent in this dimension, and all that by mere natural means, is not only improbable, but impossible. But that is not what anyone has ever claimed. They claim supernatural intervention. Thus the question of probability is greatly altered. Appeals to the absence of parallels is no longer a trump card, since reason does not lead me to believe that if a supernatural being decides to intervene in nature, it must always be doing so, and in the same way. That, to me, is like saying, "If John is to decide to get married, he must always be getting married." Perhaps this supernatural entity has a reason to make very selective exceptions to its general rule of governance; just as John may make a very selective exception in regards his general behavior and status towards women. Perhaps not: a deity may not intervene; John may remain a bachelor.

I am thus left with seeking other criteria by which to evaluate various miraculous claims. Personally, I have at least two, but only one is relevant to this entire forum: historical.

I thus determine what the historical bed-rock is: what can we infer from the data to be not only plausible, but probable: Among the historical bed-rock is that a large number of Palestinian Jews, shortly after discovering the tomb of their leader vacant, declared that on more than one occasion, both collectively and individually, they had met and interacted with the risen Jesus.

The question posed us, is how do we account for this against the background of 2nd T. Judaism and 1st c. Graeco-Roman culture?

I proceeded by going through the various theories and their combinations, e.g., conspiracy and swoon and wrong tomb and all that; using the criteria of Explanatory Power and Scope, Plausibility, Occam's Razor, Illumination etc.

The only NATURAL theory that, for me, explains the bed-rock is the one I have introduced numerous times: collective, reiterated and prolonged, nuanced and cohesive, hallucination, involving all the senses.

The problem of course is that, according to a Natural scheme, this is so implausible and improbable that only a presuppositional faith in an atheistic world could maintain belief in it.

But then, I am not a presuppositionalist. Therefore, I turn to an option in which probability and plausibility do not obtain, or at least, not in the same manner as natural events.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 58 by liamconnor]

The only NATURAL theory that, for me, explains the bed-rock is the one I have introduced numerous times: collective, reiterated and prolonged, nuanced and cohesive, hallucination, involving all the senses.

Why are you talking about a natural theory (capitalised at that!) when you say this is something supernatural we're dealing with?

is that a large number of Palestinian Jews, shortly after discovering the tomb of their leader vacant, declared that on more than one occasion, both collectively and individually, they had met and interacted with the risen Jesus.

The question posed us, is how do we account for this against the background of 2nd T. Judaism and 1st c. Graeco-Roman culture?

I've mentioned this point to you a few times, but I don't think you've ever replied to it.
So what?
What is so strange about a small group of people (not large, we're talking a few hundred people at most, and that's if we include Paul's mysterious 500 people) in a population of hundreds of thousands, believing something not in accord with mainstream orthodoxy?

But that is not what anyone has ever claimed. They claim supernatural intervention. Thus the question of probability is greatly altered.

But you're not providing evidence to support the supernatural. You've got a claimed event that cannot happen naturally, that people are saying could only happen supernaturally, you assume a supernatural god could do it, and then just declaring it exists, and hey presto...a resurrection DID happen!

since reason does not lead me to believe that if a supernatural being decides to intervene in nature, it must always be doing so, and in the same way.

It's not that we require God to always be active, it's that its mightily convenient that his apparent most active days were thousands of years ago.

The only NATURAL theory that, for me, explains the bed-rock is the one I have introduced numerous times: collective, reiterated and prolonged, nuanced and cohesive, hallucination, involving all the senses.

The problem of course is that, according to a Natural scheme, this is so implausible and improbable that only a presuppositional faith in an atheistic world could maintain belief in it.

It's still more likely than the theistic supernatural explanation, which defies probabilistic examination. You've already admitted that the supernatural explanation is well not natural, this means probability can't be applied to it.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 58 by liamconnor]

I have made this clear, again and again. Why do I need to believe in these historical claims in order to be a Christian (i.e., believe in the risen Jesus)?

Perhaps if I rephrased:

I have made this clear, again and again. Why do I need to believe in these irrational claims in order to be a Christian (i.e., believe in the risen Jesus)?

Make sense now?