That doesn't relate to what I wrote, so it's a red herring.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Discussions with Bob, the rationalist
- Thread starter OzSpen
- Start date
That doesn't relate to what I wrote, so it's a red herring.
jasonc
Member
So you don't think that it a person in war who is shot won't repent. People are that hard hearted.That's experience. PEOPLE with cancer will die rejecting God.,or in war.Foxholes,I Have DUG A Few Of them.
That's not what I said. Now address what I wrote in #78.
jasonc
Member
See my next my post,you said he won't repent or he will if he sees something that shakes him.I have seen sinners go through that and not change.
Free, I don't read links, except the ones Oz posts.
I don't intend to ever argue the worthiness of scripture. Here's why:
Those that believe know scripture is worthy.
Those who don't believe may, or may not, come to believing from scripture. Usually you cannot use scripture to prove scripture to people who don't believe in scripture. You know, circular reasoning.
This is what they have to do with anything:
Could we trust who wrote them?
No?
This goes back to my point that the writer must be trustworthy.
History in the O.T. starts with Abraham. The Jews were good at writing everything down. They were good at passing on their beliefs. They were very good at holding on to their religion for 2,000 years after they were disbursed into the world after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD.
I believe in the entire O.T. Till very shortly it was believed that Jericho did not exist. Then ruins were discovered. Peter's house in Capernaum was recently discovered. Josephus spoke of events at the time of Jesus and even mentioned Him.
But the most important point of all this is the trustworthiness of the Apostles. I had asked you to give a reason why YOU thought they were trustworthy, but I see you're just throwing the question back at me.
If you're reading an article in the newspaper of your choice, how do you know you could believe it?
Because you trust the person who's writing it.
If I cannot trust the Apostles, and Paul, who wrote the N.T., what would possibly make me think it could be true? I MUST TRUST the apostles and base the rationality of belief in the N.T.on them and them alone.
There's history in there too which could be collaborated, but what would history have to do with Jesus?
THEY are the ones telling the story of Jesus. If I believe they are making up a story, or telling lies for some reason, why would I ever want to believe that the resurrection is true? (as an example).
See 1 Corinthians 11:23
"I received from the Lord what I also delivered over to you..."
1 Corinthians 15:3-4
"I delivered to you...what I also received, that Christ died for our sins..." (Last supper)
2 Thessalonians 2:15
"Hold to the traditions which you were taught."
Also
1 John 2:1
1 John 5:13
And my favorite:
1 John 1:1-5
But now we must again ask, WHY do we trust in the Apostles?
Do you trust the apostles?
Why?
Everyone should ask this question.
If we cannot trust the Apostles, we cannot trust the New Covenant story.
Wondering
Some think they've been to heaven, once in a great while to hell, and some see nothing.
Science says that there's a gland in the brain that releases a chemical when one dies that creates the vision of a great white light. My elderly Aunt has been sick and she swears she sees object in the room that are not there.
I don't care to use this as any kind of proof. Although out of body experiences do seem very real. Some would even scoff at this and deride the the person presenting this as an argument.
I find it interesting that Bob could write whatever he wishes in the newspaper you mentioned, but you, OTOH, are limited. Would you agree that we're at the point of persecution? I think so. I don't see why this cannot be mentioned in your reply.
What I find sad is that people are willing to give their soul to these rationalist societies and yet say that Christianity is not rational. The ONLY explanation that I can find for how everything came into existence and for the existence of evil in the world is denied as not being rational. However, not knowing HOW or WHY everything came into existence is considered rational. NOT KNOWING is rational? If we wait for science we'll never know because it's not a scientific problem to solve.
Wondering
R
Runner
Guest
I was vaguely (barely) aware of Christopher's brother, but since the book I mentioned has been the rage in some segments of Christianity lately and has been widely condemned in atheist circles, I assumed you were suggesting Christopher had found God at the end of his life. His brother, and his brother's conversion, are pretty small potatoes in comparison to Christopher and what a conversion by him would have meant.
Anyway, I think you missed my point. My point was not that Christopher Hitchens would have an "excuse." My point was simply that I believe he would be intellectually honest enough to say, "Do whatever you're going to do. I didn't in believe in you during my time on earth, based on what I believed to be the best evidence available to me - and if that's the sort of God you are, I want nothing to do with you now."
Regarding Romans 1:19-20, God's eternal power and divine nature are indeed apparent "in the things that have been made" in the sense Intelligent Design is talking about. On the other hand, it is precisely the state of creation that most atheists, even highly intellectual atheists, cite as their primary reason for not believing in God. Materialism (to them) is a sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe, while the chaos and evil that characterize the world (not all of it attributable to mankind by any means) are (to them) Exhibit A for the non-existence of God. The Christian argument that the horrors of the animal kingdom and nature are attributable to the Fall is, I would think, not likely to get far with someone like Bob.
Many, many theologians, notably Paul Tillich, have noted that the core religious question is, "Why is there anything, rather than nothing at all?" People like Stephen Hawking obviously don't think this question requires a religious answer, and Bob presumably agrees. Once we get into examining the "anything" we do have, I'm not sure the atheists don't have the better of the argument. Would the typical person really look at the creation we do have and say, "Wow, only an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Creator can account for this"? Or would the typical person (Bob) be more likely to ask, "If this is all the product of an intelligence, what sort of twisted, demented, capricious intelligence is it?" Probably the latter, which is which why Christianity must posit a Fall and Satan as the Ruler of the World in order to account for the mess. I'm not saying the Christian doctrines aren't true, but it is certainly understandable why someone like Christopher Hitchens rejects them.
But whatever, perhaps I give Bob too much credit and he'll turn out to be entirely receptive. I obviously don't know Bob from the Easter Bunny and am merely relying on my pretty extensive experience with hardcore "critical thinkers."
Last edited by a moderator:
R
Runner
Guest
Bob is (presumably) wedded to the tenets of materialistic scientism. The latest advances in physics, consciousness studies and paranormal research challenge Bob's paradigm using the same methodology Bob respects. (Bear in mind, I'm not talking about ghost-buster TV shows. I'm talking about serious paranormal research at the highest level.) The various moral arguments for God's existence don't challenge Bob's paradigm; they are not compelling, and atheists have simply rejected them throughout history. Evil certainly is real, and it is the Numero Uno reason even intellectual atheists give for not believing in God. Even Christian thinkers concede there is no really convincing theodicy that will account for something like the Holocaust. See Amidst Mass Atrocity and the Rubble of Theology: Searching for a Viable Theodicy by Peter Amirand. My point has simply been that with a hardcore member of the critical-thinking community I believe you are wasting your time with traditional apologetics. I believe you need evidence that challenges the paradigm to which he is wedded. As I clearly stated, this would be a long-term project with little chance of success, which is why I wouldn't waste my time unless Bob were someone very close to me.
I assume you're familiar with the late world-class philosopher Antony Flew, who shifted from atheism to theism near the end of his life. He became an atheist in the first place largely because of the problem of evil. He spent his entire career pointing out the flaws in believers' philosophical arguments and "proofs." He was finally persuaded to adopt theism by: Intelligent Design. Bingo, his paradigm shifted.
IQ has nothing to do with being a Christian - or if it does, it is in some sort of inverse proportion. My point was simply that Christian apologetics does tend to be more effective with the less gifted, less educated and less sophisticated. They are simply more receptive than Michael Shermer or the typical member of the critical-thinking community. This is not to disparage them at all. It is simply to make the point that the arguments that may prove convincing to them are unlikely to be successful with Bob. The critical-thinking community (1) is a fundamentalist church with its own dogmatic creed, and (2) has answers that are satisfactory to its members for everything a Christian apologist is likely to say. Again, to reach a member of this community requires an approach that challenges his paradigm.
Speak for yourself on that one.
They are convinced about their arguments because they are Christians. This is my point: Christian apologetics is largely aimed at reassuring Christians. It does provide fuel for witnessing, of course, but not to Michael Shermer, Antony Flew or the typical hardcore member of the critical-thinking community.
Truly, this is all wheel-spinning. I happen to have a great deal of experience engaging with the critical-thinking community, and this is who I am picturing Anonymous Bob to be. He may be a big sweetie who is eager to be persuaded, for all I know. If he is who I'm picturing, I wouldn't waste my time. I'd have a basic discussion of what I believe and why, and if the Holy Spirit doesn't open his heart and mind - well, perhaps, it will happen sometime down the road.
R
Runner
Guest
Yes. I have had this verse in mind throughout my long-winded contributions to this thread. It is why even a preeminent theologian like Karl Barth had little use for apologetics. The truths of Christianity are spiritually discerned, not intellectually discerned. The Christian message really is counterintuitive and even "absurd" (Tertullian) unless and until one's spiritual eyes have been opened. I really don't think people with dogmatic non-Christian beliefs are "persuaded" into Christianity. Either their hearts and minds have been opened by the Holy Spirit or they haven't. If they have been, clever arguments and proofs shouldn't be necessary. I really see kind of a spiritual arrogance behind the mindset, "I'm going to overwhelm Bob's objections with my arguments and proofs."
I don't think it's spiritual arrogance.
We come in contact with different people, different types. We know how wrong they are, how lost. We'd like for everyone to know God. I think that's all it is. And then one will work with the tools he has at hand. I don't have the same tools you have, or Free or Oz. But I have had discussions with Ph.D's in Philosophy. You can always bring the conversation down to your own level if the person is decent and nice and is not arrogant. I find that most people in high places are not arrogant.
If they're interested, I agree with Oz that some effort should be made. If they begin to be upset, I stop - and this goes for whoever the person might be. I agree with you that it will ALWAYS be the Holy Spirit to open the mind and the heart - but if we don't say the words, how will it happen? They might now everything about Christianity - but sometimes it's the right word, or the right thought that clicks. Or, maybe it's just the right time.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. One tills, one plants, one waters. One will be lucky enough to see the plant blossom...
Wondering
Wondering,
Out of body experiences (OBE) may seem real to the person but I don't know of any way to objectively assess them. It's very subjective.
Yes, Bob, the rationalist can submit 3 'Opinion' articles to the online newspaper in the first half of 2016 when he pushed his anti-Christianity views by opposing bits and pieces of the religious instruction curriculum in the schools. However, when I submit a right of reply article, the editor doesn't want to consider it but says, 'You can make comments online to his articles'.
Persecution is with us here in Australia. To be able to be heard in a hostile environment is becoming increasingly difficult. Yes, persecution is here. Recently in downtown Brisbane, The Queen Street Mall, there was an attempt to close down an outdoor preacher who regularly is there with his supporters. Fortunately, the mayor of Brisbane, Graham Quirk, would not pursue this because his Liberal National Party believes in free speech. See HERE.
Why don't you read the link that Free gave that asks the question, 'Is Atheism Rational?' (interview with Alvin Plantinga in New York Times).
My sweetie is calling for breakfast (hot porridge) so I must be going.
Regards,
Oz
You know that cartoon with all the white sheep standing in a circle and they're staring down a black sheep?
Well, today all the black sheep are standing in a circle and they're staring down the white sheep.
I don't think atheism is rational. I think a person has to be silly (i'm trying to be nice) to think that all this came from nothing, or from some gases, or whatever else since scientists are not sure of anything except they are now pretty sure that it did start with a bang.
LET THERE BE LIGHT!
Okay. I'll read Free's link.
What do you mean Breakfast?
It's past midnight!!
LOL
Wondering
Wondering,
Now you know why I live Down Under in an upside-down world. We have breakfast at 8am and you say it is past midnight. It is! But WAY past midnight. When my sweetie brings me a hot cup of tea to the computer at 7.30am, she says, 'Good afternoon'. That's because I'm a 5am riser.
Yes, I remember that black sheep cartoon. This is one version:
We need to understand that secularism is not identical with atheism. But atheists love to promote secularism.
The National Society of Secularism (UK) states that ‘secularism is a principle that involves two basic propositions. The first is the strict separation of the state from religious institutions. The second is that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law’.
Secularism is not atheism.
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Secularism simply provides a framework for a democratic society. Atheists have an obvious interest in supporting secularism, but secularism itself does not seek to challenge the tenets of any particular religion or belief, neither does it seek to impose atheism on anyone.
Secularism is simply a framework for ensuring equality throughout society – in politics, education, the law and elsewhere, for believers and non-believers alike.
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Secularism simply provides a framework for a democratic society. Atheists have an obvious interest in supporting secularism, but secularism itself does not seek to challenge the tenets of any particular religion or belief, neither does it seek to impose atheism on anyone.
Secularism is simply a framework for ensuring equality throughout society – in politics, education, the law and elsewhere, for believers and non-believers alike.
In my discussions with secularists and atheists, I like to help them see the logical conclusions of their worldviews. Secularists want religion out of the public marketplace, including the schools in Australia, and replace it with secular values. I try to show that the values of secularism are also religion and they also have a 'statement of faith' that is as obvious as Christianity - from the values they promote.
Oz
R
Runner
Guest
As one who is very kindly disposed toward Plantinga and who has read literally reams of his work, the linked article (an interview conducted by email by a theist who, like Plantinga, is associated with Notre Dame) is absolutely the worst thing of Plantinga's I have ever read. I would call it "embarrassing," but too many others already have. It reminds me - yes - of Frank Turek; it sounds ingenious as long as you don't think too hard about it, but you intuitively know it's just goofy. Here is one philosophy professor's take on the interview from his "rationality" blog (this not being the most lucid thing I've ever read either, but it does give insight into how much weight arguments like Plantinga's are likely to carry with an atheist): http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2014/02/is-alving-plantinga-for-real-alas-it.html .
Plantinga is never really saying, in the linked interview or elsewhere, that atheists are irrational; his focus is on showing that theists are not irrational. (I guess he does say that agnosticism is the only intellectually honest alternative to belief, but many people would say agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position, period. Agnosticism, of course, does not mean that one is sitting with one leg on either side of the fence. I may be 98% convinced a deity exists and 95% convinced Christianity is true, and willing to live my life on the basis of these beliefs, but if I'm a sane and rational human being I have to admit there is at least some possibility Buddhism or even atheism might be true. Anyone who says otherwise is simply not sane, not rational or, more typically, fudging the truth a bit in order to fit in within his community of belief.)
Here is far more respectful take on Plantinga by Thomas Nagel, an atheist philosopher: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/09/27/philosopher-defends-religion/?pagination=false . Not only is Nagel respectful, but his review gives a far better overview of Plantinga's thought than you will get from the confused and confusing "interview." (Nagel himself is the author of Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, which I haven't yet read.)
One point of Plantinga's that Nagel emphasizes (not in the above article) and that doesn't require a Ph.D. in Epistemology to grasp, is the difficulty that materialists have in explaining how consciousness and reliable beliefs arise at all in a purely material, mechanistic universe. This is why I said I would steer Bob to the latest work in consciousness studies - but probably not to Plantinga. (Regarding "proofs" of God, you will note that Plantinga states in the interview, "Philosophers, as opposed to other academics, are often professionally concerned with the theistic arguments — arguments for the existence of God. My guess is that a considerable majority of philosophers, both believers and unbelievers, reject these arguments as unsound." Hmmm.)
A discussion of Alvin Plantinga on a garden-variety Internet discussion forum is, well, shall we say, a bit misplaced. Perhaps we can take up tachyons next.
Plantinga is never really saying, in the linked interview or elsewhere, that atheists are irrational; his focus is on showing that theists are not irrational. (I guess he does say that agnosticism is the only intellectually honest alternative to belief, but many people would say agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position, period. Agnosticism, of course, does not mean that one is sitting with one leg on either side of the fence. I may be 98% convinced a deity exists and 95% convinced Christianity is true, and willing to live my life on the basis of these beliefs, but if I'm a sane and rational human being I have to admit there is at least some possibility Buddhism or even atheism might be true. Anyone who says otherwise is simply not sane, not rational or, more typically, fudging the truth a bit in order to fit in within his community of belief.)
Here is far more respectful take on Plantinga by Thomas Nagel, an atheist philosopher: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/09/27/philosopher-defends-religion/?pagination=false . Not only is Nagel respectful, but his review gives a far better overview of Plantinga's thought than you will get from the confused and confusing "interview." (Nagel himself is the author of Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, which I haven't yet read.)
One point of Plantinga's that Nagel emphasizes (not in the above article) and that doesn't require a Ph.D. in Epistemology to grasp, is the difficulty that materialists have in explaining how consciousness and reliable beliefs arise at all in a purely material, mechanistic universe. This is why I said I would steer Bob to the latest work in consciousness studies - but probably not to Plantinga. (Regarding "proofs" of God, you will note that Plantinga states in the interview, "Philosophers, as opposed to other academics, are often professionally concerned with the theistic arguments — arguments for the existence of God. My guess is that a considerable majority of philosophers, both believers and unbelievers, reject these arguments as unsound." Hmmm.)
A discussion of Alvin Plantinga on a garden-variety Internet discussion forum is, well, shall we say, a bit misplaced. Perhaps we can take up tachyons next.
Runner,
And God would say to Christopher Hitchens, 'You are not being intellectually honest with the evidence I have provided you in creation. Your suppression of the truth in your unrighteousness (Rom 1:18 ESV) has prevented you from seeing the obvious - evidence of My (God's) invisible attributes of eternal power and divine nature. I have laid it before you but you have ignored it because of your sinfulness. The best evidence from God is laid out before you, Christopher, but you are thumbing your intellectual nose at Me (God). You are deadly wrong and are suffering the consequences of not being honest with the evidence I (God) have demonstrated to you in creation'.
Intelligent Design (ID) is not mentioned, but I use that as one aspect of what I see in creation but that design is flawed because of the sin that originated with Adam & Eve (Gen 3 ESV).
Creation may be an excuse for atheists rejecting God, but God's view is that it is their suppression of the truth in their unrighteousness that causes them not to see God's attributes in nature. That's where I focus some of my effort. I try to discover which laws of God they break.
You know that materialism suffers from the law of entropy and it is a loser. This unrighteousness prevents them from accepting the authentic explanation of the chaos in our universe caused by original sin. Yes, there is disorder, but there is marvellous order in the universe and God's eternal power is its explanation, not ID alone.
I have Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology and I don't find his answers that are infiltrated by a theological liberal world view to be convincing. That there is anything instead of nothing is demonstrated by God to be evident in Genesis 1 (ESV). Don't you accept the authenticity of Gen 1 and the Trinitarian God as the initial creator (ESV)? Is something other than God the original creator of the heavens and the earth for you?
You ask a valid question: 'Would the typical person (Bob) be more likely to ask, "If this is all the product of an intelligence, what sort of twisted, demented, capricious intelligence is it?"' I would tell him that his twisted world view is twisted because he is, (1) Not considering all of the available evidence - and that includes the omnipotent, good and perfect God, the existence and impact of Satan, and the evil that entered the world according to Gen 3 (ESV). (2) It is twisted because of those factors and he is blind to God's evidence in creation because of his suppression of this truth in his unrighteousness (Rom 1:18ff ESV; Psalm 19:1-6 ESV).
You and I both have lived and live with the consequences of the Genesis 3 (ESV) events through cancer in our wives' bodies. However, my godly wife and I are not blaming God for her cancer. She knows the consequences of Gen 3 (ESV) that impact her body and our world, and she knows that ultimate peace and elimination of evil awaits the Parousia. God's perfect and good world began in Gen 1-2 (ESV), was wrecked in Gen 3 (ESV) and will be made new again in the new heavens and the new earth: 'But we are looking forward to the new heavens and new earth he has promised, a world filled with God's righteousness' (2 Peter 3:13 NLT).
As I write this at 11.44am Saturday, I'm enjoying my wife's playing jazz on our grand piano . She's practising for her next gig in the jazz band with which she plays - Jazz Joy. She can still do that in spite of the cancer in her body. She will continue to do this until God takes her home to be with him.
Hard core critical thinkers may be hard in the natural to crack, but in this thread I've provided evidence of people who have been in this category and God has cracked them with his glorious Gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit.
I have the optimism of God's Holy Spirit and the drawing power of God through the Gospel (John 6:44 ESV; John 12:32 ESV).
Oz
Last edited:
R
Runner
Guest
Certainly I accept God as the Creator of all that is, was or ever will be. I see nothing in anything I have posted that would suggest otherwise. Who are you to question what I believe?
Again, I think you miss my point. Tillich (and many others) suggest that the bottom-line religious question, the core question that religion attempts to answer, is why there is anything rather than nothing. The Christian's answer is "God." But my point was that, even at this bottom-line level, someone as brilliant as Stephen Hawking (for example) says: "No need for God. Physics has/can/will explain it." So to reach someone who doesn't even agree that this bottom-line question is a religious one, you need evidence that challenges his paradigm.
To attempt to convince someone who simply doesn't accept your paradigm at all that he is failing to see the truth because his senses have been distorted by unrighteousness and the creation has been corrupted by the Fall and the influence of Satan ... well, those arguments may make sense to me, but I have a hard time seeing them dent the paradigm of a hardcore atheist (unless he has been primed by the Holy Spirit, the point I have been emphasizing all along).