Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How to choose?

drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:42:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is a room. In this room is an individual who, prior to now, has had no concept of god or religion. However, having just learned about it, he wants to learn more. He has collected the dogma and relevant texts from all extant religions, along with a member of each of those religions.

You are one of those representatives. How do you convince this person of the truth and validity of your religion, knowing full well that all the other members will be trying to do the same? What argument can you give for your religion that makes it truer than the others?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 7:59:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would pray with him and ask God to lead him, as He did with me, to faith. I would ask him to read the Bible, with an open mind and open heart, and pray with sincerity for God to give him the ability to understand it's meaning. If he's willing to give it serious thought, then the seed has been planted, and that's all I can do (except for trying to answer questions he might have). Whether the seed grows into good fruit is beyond my control.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 9:07:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:42:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
There is a room. In this room is an individual who, prior to now, has had no concept of god or religion. However, having just learned about it, he wants to learn more. He has collected the dogma and relevant texts from all extant religions, along with a member of each of those religions.

You are one of those representatives. How do you convince this person of the truth and validity of your religion, knowing full well that all the other members will be trying to do the same?

Dear "individual in a room",
I am a Christian= Born again Spirit filled believer in the atonement of Jesus. I personally am "non-denominational" because I believe what the book of Acts reveals about unity. I believe that as believers we should strive towards spiritual unity and be of one accord and one mind not only for ourselves, but for those who need the truth and who are looking for God. I believe that we should always put God before our doctrines so that we always have the Heart of God rather than our opinions and that of which our personal churches teach us as true. The Bible teaches that some honor God merely with their words and their doctrines, but their heart is far from Him. The Word of God is true and there is only One Spirit. We can accomplish that unity by having the Spirit of God abiding within our spirit, and the Spirit is what leads us into His truth, as well as loving one another and putting them first before ourselves.

I believe that the teachings of the Bible are special because of what it offers. It offers that this God will be with you, guide you and live within you, that you may know Him and have fellowship with Him in THIS life! and I testify that this is true. Christianity not only offers an explanation, but a purpose and a direction. Not only do you have words on a page, but tangible fruit and results your life as confirmation and a witness.
I would not by any means suggest to you that you ought to just take my word for it and believe whatever I say, but to take that information and have it for yourself; To believe God for yourself and apply it to your life that you may have all blessings and all things promised by God. The God of the Bible can give you truth, life, wisdom, knowledge and understanding, spiritual gifts, peace, comfort, love, grace, forgiveness, revelations, visions, communion, victory over spiritual oppression and sin, miracles as well as direction for your life and things He would like you to have and acheive.

I would not merely suggest that you should embrace some doctrine or my own thoughts, but to embrace the Person, a God who is personal and intimate and powerful; a God who would go to great lengths to assure you of your protection and who always will forget your sins if you just confess and be honest about them as you rely on the sacrifice that He provided and turn from your wickedness and follow righteousness.

It is my belief that the Bible is very clear, specific and easy to understand. To me, it shines as a bright light and stands out from the rest of the crowd in its simplicity and its form, yet it has numerous qualities. It gives us clear answers and questions to specific problems and specific realities in this life. It gives us clear and distinct wisdom and knowledge, distinction between truth and lie, good or evil, and a precise vision of what is acceptable and required. Not only is the Bible relevant to our current life, but we also get clear knowledge of what is after as well as what was before. I believe the Bible gives a clear coherent and true position and an acceptable understanding of this existence.

What argument can you give for your religion that makes it truer than the others?

I would say that nomatter what, it should be "truer" to YOU than the others. I cannot make it truer for you than the others. I believe that you will be able to know for yourself what is truth if you decide God.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 9:19:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:42:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
There is a room. In this room is an individual who, prior to now, has had no concept of god or religion. However, having just learned about it, he wants to learn more. He has collected the dogma and relevant texts from all extant religions, along with a member of each of those religions.

You are one of those representatives. How do you convince this person of the truth and validity of your religion, knowing full well that all the other members will be trying to do the same? What argument can you give for your religion that makes it truer than the others?

It depends on how much time I had with this person. I would want to discuss epistemology and noetic structures, worldviews and coherence, naturalism and the soul, arguments for God, messianic expectation in post-exilic Judaism, the historical Jesus, miracles, the resurrection, the atonement, and election.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 9:40:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, if the individual was in fact in such a state of ignorance, then their prior probability for the existence of at least one deity should be 0.5. This means the quantity and quality of evidence they'd require to be convinced of theism--and ramified versions thereof--is significantly relaxed. i.e. gods shouldn't appear 'extraordinary' to this individual.

Further, the strongest and best arguments from atheism are entirely irrelevant to deities in general. They're aimed--almost exclusively--at deities on the extreme end of the power and moral character spectrum. Even Graham Oppy concedes this. So, I'd argue their prior for theism is where it ought to be. At this point, I'd also show that God does not exist, thereby eliminating Christianity, Judaism, Islam and even Baha'ism from the running.

Then I'd advance pieces of evidence for the existence of at least one deity, such as the falsity of naturalism and the phenomena of first person perspective, intentionality and so forth. Anyone of these would suffice, but better to cover the bases. Having established that at least one god probably exists, I'd argue that more than one god probably exists via our religious experiences of them.

This would open up a variety of polytheistic faiths to the individual including Hinduism and Wicca, but I'd only show that the particular Druid path I follow is justified via religious experiences.

None of this would be to convert the individual, but to show that the system I endorse does stand on rational grounds, so that at the very least, he'd have to acknowledge that it could reasonably be held by his epistemic peers.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:01:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 9:41:40 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Provide evidence of the Christian God -- Oh wait! That evidence is no more conclusive than all the other. Ah darn.

Kids these days...lol
likespeace
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 3:54:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd begin by asking him how he came to be in this room, who sheltered from the religious groups so long, and why he's curious about them now? I'd be more concerned about understanding and helping him than advocating my philosophy. Under certain circumstances--he's soon to die--I might even support him cultivating a delusion, if that would make his subsequent passing easier.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 5:02:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:42:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
There is a room. In this room is an individual who, prior to now, has had no concept of god or religion. However, having just learned about it, he wants to learn more. He has collected the dogma and relevant texts from all extant religions, along with a member of each of those religions.

You are one of those representatives. How do you convince this person of the truth and validity of your religion, knowing full well that all the other members will be trying to do the same? What argument can you give for your religion that makes it truer than the others?

I'd tell that person, for all the claims that are coming your way, what God said, what God did, what God wants, why God did such and such, even what God personally wants from you on threat of eternal hell fire, all these claims are coming from your fellow humans.

I'd point to such a person the claim coming from a human that God (insert claim here) does not equal therefore God (insert claim here).

I'd wish them the best of luck, cause in this world, they are going to need it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:12:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:42:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
There is a room. In this room is an individual who, prior to now, has had no concept of god or religion. However, having just learned about it, he wants to learn more. He has collected the dogma and relevant texts from all extant religions, along with a member of each of those religions.

You are one of those representatives. How do you convince this person of the truth and validity of your religion, knowing full well that all the other members will be trying to do the same? What argument can you give for your religion that makes it truer than the others?

Easy, Christian particularism. And to support this, all one would have to do is show the self-understanding of Christ, both implicit and explicit and show what his radical claims were. Which of course contradicted all other religious claims to the contrary.

THEN, show the best explanation of the historical facts behind Christ's postmortem appearances, empty tomb, and the origin of Christianity is more plausibly the hypothesis that "God miraculously rose Christ from the dead" thereby vindicating his self-understanding and claims.

What a beautiful revelation of God to man! It took place in a human, and ended with an obvious miracle grounded in human history.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:15:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 9:41:40 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Provide evidence of the Christian God -- Oh wait! That evidence is no more conclusive than all the other. Ah darn.

Again, you know where to find me to debate this nonsensical claim..
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:22:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:12:50 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:42:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
There is a room. In this room is an individual who, prior to now, has had no concept of god or religion. However, having just learned about it, he wants to learn more. He has collected the dogma and relevant texts from all extant religions, along with a member of each of those religions.

You are one of those representatives. How do you convince this person of the truth and validity of your religion, knowing full well that all the other members will be trying to do the same? What argument can you give for your religion that makes it truer than the others?

Easy, Christian particularism. And to support this, all one would have to do is show the self-understanding of Christ, both implicit and explicit and show what his radical claims were. Which of course contradicted all other religious claims to the contrary.

THEN, show the best explanation of the historical facts behind Christ's postmortem appearances, empty tomb, and the origin of Christianity is more plausibly the hypothesis that "God miraculously rose Christ from the dead" thereby vindicating his self-understanding and claims.

What a beautiful revelation of God to man! It took place in a human, and ended with an obvious miracle grounded in human history.

What about religions like those of the Vedas which make no claim to historical accuracy (in an empirically detectable manner) but teach a religious and philosophical messages?

Would you simply say "can't be any of those because they aren't claiming x happened a time y and that we can empirically learn this?"

And as amusingly eurocentric as it is, I have to ask why you think that any person on the planet, chosen randomly and questioned, will show a self-understanding of Christ at odds with whatever religions shaped said persons initial culture and environment (again, I point to India)?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 7:41:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:22:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:12:50 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:42:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
There is a room. In this room is an individual who, prior to now, has had no concept of god or religion. However, having just learned about it, he wants to learn more. He has collected the dogma and relevant texts from all extant religions, along with a member of each of those religions.

You are one of those representatives. How do you convince this person of the truth and validity of your religion, knowing full well that all the other members will be trying to do the same? What argument can you give for your religion that makes it truer than the others?

Easy, Christian particularism. And to support this, all one would have to do is show the self-understanding of Christ, both implicit and explicit and show what his radical claims were. Which of course contradicted all other religious claims to the contrary.

THEN, show the best explanation of the historical facts behind Christ's postmortem appearances, empty tomb, and the origin of Christianity is more plausibly the hypothesis that "God miraculously rose Christ from the dead" thereby vindicating his self-understanding and claims.

What a beautiful revelation of God to man! It took place in a human, and ended with an obvious miracle grounded in human history.

What about religions like those of the Vedas which make no claim to historical accuracy (in an empirically detectable manner) but teach a religious and philosophical messages?

Good for them?


Would you simply say "can't be any of those because they aren't claiming x happened a time y and that we can empirically learn this?"

Please rephrase this to where it's comprehensible... I just don't know what you're asking here.

And as amusingly eurocentric as it is, I have to ask why you think that any person on the planet, chosen randomly and questioned, will show a self-understanding of Christ at odds with whatever religions shaped said persons initial culture and environment (again, I point to India)?

If you observe his radical claims to be the unique way to know God I think you'll understand. First, there's no denying that Jesus was worshipped as Lord and God in the early church. There was a full-blown Christology proclaiming Jesus as God incarnated which existed within 20 years of the crucifixion against every predisposition to the contrary. He was worshipped by mono-theistic Jews, etc. The oldest Christian sermon, account of a martyr, pagan report of the church, liturgical prayer all refer to Christ as Lord. If Jesus never made such claims, the belief of the earliest Christians becomes inexplicable! And the self-descriptions used by Jesus gives insight into his self-understanding..

Jesus made explicit self-referential claims and implicit teaching behavior. The early church worshipped of Jesus as God along with the very origin of that belief itself. Christos became closely associated with the name Jesus that for Paul it was practically a surname. The early church as professed that Jesus is the Christ, messiah, and the son of God, etc. IN all this there is no non-messianic form of the Jesus-movement.

Moreover, the resurrection of the suffering righteous messiah was without analogy. The Gospels unambiguously presents Jesus as having a messianic identity (Mark.8:27-30). Jesus" sayings and doings attest to his self-understanding: Eg, his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the plaque on his cross read: "King of the Jews" a claim for which he was executed, etc.

And so what is the theological significance of Jesus" messianic self-understanding? Well if he knew himself to be the messiah and made radical claims to forgive sins, etc then a resurrection vindicates Christ as the unique and only way to know God.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 8:04:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:42:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
There is a room. In this room is an individual who, prior to now, has had no concept of god or religion. However, having just learned about it, he wants to learn more. He has collected the dogma and relevant texts from all extant religions, along with a member of each of those religions.

You are one of those representatives. How do you convince this person of the truth and validity of your religion, knowing full well that all the other members will be trying to do the same? What argument can you give for your religion that makes it truer than the others?

This is the primary reason, I no longer call myself christian. If any religion may arise without divine assistance, then it is possible that all may arise without divine assistance. It seems unlikely that divine assistance would result in multiple contradicting religions. If we conclude that all arose without divine assistance - all except for one, then how do we justify that exception? I have not found compelling justification for that exception that could not also be applied to most or any religion. This I would note, does not disprove God, however it makes the acceptance of a religious conception of God(s) and the associated tenets difficult to hold. I am not insisting that anyone share this view, but explaining the reasoning behind mine.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 8:17:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 8:04:01 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:42:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
There is a room. In this room is an individual who, prior to now, has had no concept of god or religion. However, having just learned about it, he wants to learn more. He has collected the dogma and relevant texts from all extant religions, along with a member of each of those religions.

You are one of those representatives. How do you convince this person of the truth and validity of your religion, knowing full well that all the other members will be trying to do the same? What argument can you give for your religion that makes it truer than the others?

This is the primary reason, I no longer call myself christian. If any religion may arise without divine assistance, then it is possible that all may arise without divine assistance. It seems unlikely that divine assistance would result in multiple contradicting religions. If we conclude that all arose without divine assistance - all except for one, then how do we justify that exception? I have not found compelling justification for that exception that could not also be applied to most or any religion. This I would note, does not disprove God, however it makes the acceptance of a religious conception of God(s) and the associated tenets difficult to hold. I am not insisting that anyone share this view, but explaining the reasoning behind mine.

Possibilities are cheap.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 8:30:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:12:50 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:42:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
There is a room. In this room is an individual who, prior to now, has had no concept of god or religion. However, having just learned about it, he wants to learn more. He has collected the dogma and relevant texts from all extant religions, along with a member of each of those religions.

You are one of those representatives. How do you convince this person of the truth and validity of your religion, knowing full well that all the other members will be trying to do the same? What argument can you give for your religion that makes it truer than the others?

Easy, Christian particularism. And to support this, all one would have to do is show the self-understanding of Christ, both implicit and explicit and show what his radical claims were. Which of course contradicted all other religious claims to the contrary.

THEN, show the best explanation of the historical facts behind Christ's postmortem appearances, empty tomb, and the origin of Christianity is more plausibly the hypothesis that "God miraculously rose Christ from the dead" thereby vindicating his self-understanding and claims.

What a beautiful revelation of God to man! It took place in a human, and ended with an obvious miracle grounded in human history.

I can show you evidence of miracles from other faiths. Would that negate Christianity?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 8:57:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 8:30:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:12:50 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:42:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
There is a room. In this room is an individual who, prior to now, has had no concept of god or religion. However, having just learned about it, he wants to learn more. He has collected the dogma and relevant texts from all extant religions, along with a member of each of those religions.

You are one of those representatives. How do you convince this person of the truth and validity of your religion, knowing full well that all the other members will be trying to do the same? What argument can you give for your religion that makes it truer than the others?

Easy, Christian particularism. And to support this, all one would have to do is show the self-understanding of Christ, both implicit and explicit and show what his radical claims were. Which of course contradicted all other religious claims to the contrary.

THEN, show the best explanation of the historical facts behind Christ's postmortem appearances, empty tomb, and the origin of Christianity is more plausibly the hypothesis that "God miraculously rose Christ from the dead" thereby vindicating his self-understanding and claims.

What a beautiful revelation of God to man! It took place in a human, and ended with an obvious miracle grounded in human history.

I can show you evidence of miracles from other faiths. Would that negate Christianity?

Depends of course if they're compatible with Christianity in their religio-context, if they're authentic or as multiply independently attested as Christs's. Meaning Yes if they're incompatible and more historically plausible that that of the resurrection of Christ.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 9:10:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 8:57:52 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:30:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:12:50 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:42:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
There is a room. In this room is an individual who, prior to now, has had no concept of god or religion. However, having just learned about it, he wants to learn more. He has collected the dogma and relevant texts from all extant religions, along with a member of each of those religions.

You are one of those representatives. How do you convince this person of the truth and validity of your religion, knowing full well that all the other members will be trying to do the same? What argument can you give for your religion that makes it truer than the others?

Easy, Christian particularism. And to support this, all one would have to do is show the self-understanding of Christ, both implicit and explicit and show what his radical claims were. Which of course contradicted all other religious claims to the contrary.

THEN, show the best explanation of the historical facts behind Christ's postmortem appearances, empty tomb, and the origin of Christianity is more plausibly the hypothesis that "God miraculously rose Christ from the dead" thereby vindicating his self-understanding and claims.

What a beautiful revelation of God to man! It took place in a human, and ended with an obvious miracle grounded in human history.

I can show you evidence of miracles from other faiths. Would that negate Christianity?

Depends of course if they're compatible with Christianity in their religio-context, if they're authentic or as multiply independently attested as Christs's. Meaning Yes if they're incompatible and more historically plausible that that of the resurrection of Christ.

What does "incompatible" mean? If these miracles occurred at least 1400 years after Christ died in a place that had no Christians, would that count?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 9:31:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 9:10:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:57:52 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:30:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:12:50 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:42:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
There is a room. In this room is an individual who, prior to now, has had no concept of god or religion. However, having just learned about it, he wants to learn more. He has collected the dogma and relevant texts from all extant religions, along with a member of each of those religions.

You are one of those representatives. How do you convince this person of the truth and validity of your religion, knowing full well that all the other members will be trying to do the same? What argument can you give for your religion that makes it truer than the others?

Easy, Christian particularism. And to support this, all one would have to do is show the self-understanding of Christ, both implicit and explicit and show what his radical claims were. Which of course contradicted all other religious claims to the contrary.

THEN, show the best explanation of the historical facts behind Christ's postmortem appearances, empty tomb, and the origin of Christianity is more plausibly the hypothesis that "God miraculously rose Christ from the dead" thereby vindicating his self-understanding and claims.

What a beautiful revelation of God to man! It took place in a human, and ended with an obvious miracle grounded in human history.

I can show you evidence of miracles from other faiths. Would that negate Christianity?

Depends of course if they're compatible with Christianity in their religio-context, if they're authentic or as multiply independently attested as Christs's. Meaning Yes if they're incompatible and more historically plausible that that of the resurrection of Christ.

What does "incompatible" mean? If these miracles occurred at least 1400 years after Christ died in a place that had no Christians, would that count?

If belief A is logically incompatible with belief B, then both AB can't be held as true together.

Please present your case rather than asking loaded questions.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 9:36:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 9:31:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:10:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:57:52 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:30:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:12:50 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:42:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
There is a room. In this room is an individual who, prior to now, has had no concept of god or religion. However, having just learned about it, he wants to learn more. He has collected the dogma and relevant texts from all extant religions, along with a member of each of those religions.

You are one of those representatives. How do you convince this person of the truth and validity of your religion, knowing full well that all the other members will be trying to do the same? What argument can you give for your religion that makes it truer than the others?

Easy, Christian particularism. And to support this, all one would have to do is show the self-understanding of Christ, both implicit and explicit and show what his radical claims were. Which of course contradicted all other religious claims to the contrary.

THEN, show the best explanation of the historical facts behind Christ's postmortem appearances, empty tomb, and the origin of Christianity is more plausibly the hypothesis that "God miraculously rose Christ from the dead" thereby vindicating his self-understanding and claims.

What a beautiful revelation of God to man! It took place in a human, and ended with an obvious miracle grounded in human history.

I can show you evidence of miracles from other faiths. Would that negate Christianity?

Depends of course if they're compatible with Christianity in their religio-context, if they're authentic or as multiply independently attested as Christs's. Meaning Yes if they're incompatible and more historically plausible that that of the resurrection of Christ.

What does "incompatible" mean? If these miracles occurred at least 1400 years after Christ died in a place that had no Christians, would that count?

If belief A is logically incompatible with belief B, then both AB can't be held as true together.

Please present your case rather than asking loaded questions.

I don't know what's logically incompatible with Christianity. This seems like a silly tactic that you will use to just claim any non-Christian miracle I find is evidence of Christ even though the people who performed them had no idea who Jesus was.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 9:49:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 9:36:03 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:31:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:10:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:57:52 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:30:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:12:50 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:42:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
There is a room. In this room is an individual who, prior to now, has had no concept of god or religion. However, having just learned about it, he wants to learn more. He has collected the dogma and relevant texts from all extant religions, along with a member of each of those religions.

You are one of those representatives. How do you convince this person of the truth and validity of your religion, knowing full well that all the other members will be trying to do the same? What argument can you give for your religion that makes it truer than the others?

Easy, Christian particularism. And to support this, all one would have to do is show the self-understanding of Christ, both implicit and explicit and show what his radical claims were. Which of course contradicted all other religious claims to the contrary.

THEN, show the best explanation of the historical facts behind Christ's postmortem appearances, empty tomb, and the origin of Christianity is more plausibly the hypothesis that "God miraculously rose Christ from the dead" thereby vindicating his self-understanding and claims.

What a beautiful revelation of God to man! It took place in a human, and ended with an obvious miracle grounded in human history.

I can show you evidence of miracles from other faiths. Would that negate Christianity?

Depends of course if they're compatible with Christianity in their religio-context, if they're authentic or as multiply independently attested as Christs's. Meaning Yes if they're incompatible and more historically plausible that that of the resurrection of Christ.

What does "incompatible" mean? If these miracles occurred at least 1400 years after Christ died in a place that had no Christians, would that count?

If belief A is logically incompatible with belief B, then both AB can't be held as true together.

Please present your case rather than asking loaded questions.

I don't know what's logically incompatible with Christianity. This seems like a silly tactic that you will use to just claim any non-Christian miracle I find is evidence of Christ even though the people who performed them had no idea who Jesus was.

Things that you claim as "silly tactics" might as well be well reasoned arguments that you just simply can't find a way to defeat. Simple sneering at an argument does nothing to undercut it, no matter how postmodern you consider yourself to be.

There are criteria for identifying a miracle which I went at length to defend here,

http://debate.org...

There is also McCullaghs's criteria for historical truths for any historical claim to be thrown against. If the historicity of Christ sticks, and your historical claims don't. well then I can walk away confident in the historicity of Christ while you continue to sneer.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 9:51:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 9:49:11 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:36:03 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:31:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:10:19 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:57:52 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:30:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:12:50 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:42:29 AM, drafterman wrote:
There is a room. In this room is an individual who, prior to now, has had no concept of god or religion. However, having just learned about it, he wants to learn more. He has collected the dogma and relevant texts from all extant religions, along with a member of each of those religions.

You are one of those representatives. How do you convince this person of the truth and validity of your religion, knowing full well that all the other members will be trying to do the same? What argument can you give for your religion that makes it truer than the others?

Easy, Christian particularism. And to support this, all one would have to do is show the self-understanding of Christ, both implicit and explicit and show what his radical claims were. Which of course contradicted all other religious claims to the contrary.

THEN, show the best explanation of the historical facts behind Christ's postmortem appearances, empty tomb, and the origin of Christianity is more plausibly the hypothesis that "God miraculously rose Christ from the dead" thereby vindicating his self-understanding and claims.

What a beautiful revelation of God to man! It took place in a human, and ended with an obvious miracle grounded in human history.

I can show you evidence of miracles from other faiths. Would that negate Christianity?

Depends of course if they're compatible with Christianity in their religio-context, if they're authentic or as multiply independently attested as Christs's. Meaning Yes if they're incompatible and more historically plausible that that of the resurrection of Christ.

What does "incompatible" mean? If these miracles occurred at least 1400 years after Christ died in a place that had no Christians, would that count?

If belief A is logically incompatible with belief B, then both AB can't be held as true together.

Please present your case rather than asking loaded questions.

I don't know what's logically incompatible with Christianity. This seems like a silly tactic that you will use to just claim any non-Christian miracle I find is evidence of Christ even though the people who performed them had no idea who Jesus was.

Things that you claim as "silly tactics" might as well be well reasoned arguments that you just simply can't find a way to defeat. Simple sneering at an argument does nothing to undercut it, no matter how postmodern you consider yourself to be.

There are criteria for identifying a miracle which I went at length to defend here,

http://debate.org...

There is also McCullaghs's criteria for historical truths for any historical claim to be thrown against. If the historicity of Christ sticks, and your historical claims don't. well then I can walk away confident in the historicity of Christ while you continue to sneer.

I'm not sneering at the argument. I'm asking you to give a proper justification ahead of time so that I don't have to listen to nonsense about how non-Christian miracles were secretly Christian miracles. Are the miracles supposed to disprove Christianity? I want to know what the criteria are.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 9:58:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
By the way, what is the proof that Jesus was actually resurrected? Where is the historical evidence? There is some evidence that he survived the insurrection and left for his childhood home of Kashmir, India, where he is buried today.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:02:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 9:51:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:




Things that you claim as "silly tactics" might as well be well reasoned arguments that you just simply can't find a way to defeat. Simple sneering at an argument does nothing to undercut it, no matter how postmodern you consider yourself to be.

There are criteria for identifying a miracle which I went at length to defend here,

http://debate.org...

There is also McCullaghs's criteria for historical truths for any historical claim to be thrown against. If the historicity of Christ sticks, and your historical claims don't. well then I can walk away confident in the historicity of Christ while you continue to sneer.

I'm not sneering at the argument. I'm asking you to give a proper justification ahead of time so that I don't have to listen to nonsense about how non-Christian miracles were secretly Christian miracles. Are the miracles supposed to disprove Christianity? I want to know what the criteria are.

That's prejudicial sneering if I've ever seen it! :-)

Now McCullagh lists six criteria which historians use in testing historical descriptions: explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, ad hocness, accord with accepted beliefs, and superiority to rival hypotheses. Find it here,

C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 19.

I don't know what you mean by this question,

"Are the miracles supposed to disprove Christianity?"

What miracles?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:11:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 10:02:22 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:51:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:




Things that you claim as "silly tactics" might as well be well reasoned arguments that you just simply can't find a way to defeat. Simple sneering at an argument does nothing to undercut it, no matter how postmodern you consider yourself to be.

There are criteria for identifying a miracle which I went at length to defend here,

http://debate.org...

There is also McCullaghs's criteria for historical truths for any historical claim to be thrown against. If the historicity of Christ sticks, and your historical claims don't. well then I can walk away confident in the historicity of Christ while you continue to sneer.

I'm not sneering at the argument. I'm asking you to give a proper justification ahead of time so that I don't have to listen to nonsense about how non-Christian miracles were secretly Christian miracles. Are the miracles supposed to disprove Christianity? I want to know what the criteria are.

That's prejudicial sneering if I've ever seen it! :-)

Now McCullagh lists six criteria which historians use in testing historical descriptions: explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, ad hocness, accord with accepted beliefs, and superiority to rival hypotheses. Find it here,

C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 19.

I don't know what you mean by this question,

"Are the miracles supposed to disprove Christianity?"

What miracles?

Will you stop posting irrelevant things and answer the question? Why is this so difficult for you? I don't care about some literary professor's definition of a miracle. I am asking you what the miracles I provide have to do in order to be considered non-Christian. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:32:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 10:11:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:02:22 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:51:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:




Things that you claim as "silly tactics" might as well be well reasoned arguments that you just simply can't find a way to defeat. Simple sneering at an argument does nothing to undercut it, no matter how postmodern you consider yourself to be.

There are criteria for identifying a miracle which I went at length to defend here,

http://debate.org...

There is also McCullaghs's criteria for historical truths for any historical claim to be thrown against. If the historicity of Christ sticks, and your historical claims don't. well then I can walk away confident in the historicity of Christ while you continue to sneer.

I'm not sneering at the argument. I'm asking you to give a proper justification ahead of time so that I don't have to listen to nonsense about how non-Christian miracles were secretly Christian miracles. Are the miracles supposed to disprove Christianity? I want to know what the criteria are.

That's prejudicial sneering if I've ever seen it! :-)

Now McCullagh lists six criteria which historians use in testing historical descriptions: explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, ad hocness, accord with accepted beliefs, and superiority to rival hypotheses. Find it here,

C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 19.

I don't know what you mean by this question,

"Are the miracles supposed to disprove Christianity?"

What miracles?

Will you stop posting irrelevant things and answer the question?

I have answered the questions, perhaps if your questions aren't really reflecting what you intend to be answered, then learn to word sentences more carefully, lest you be misunderstood. I'm not your emotional shaman.

Why is this so difficult for you? I don't care about some literary professor's definition of a miracle. I am asking you what the miracles I provide have to do in order to be considered non-Christian. Why is this so difficult to understand?

I never gave a literary professor's definition of a miracle, I gave my own in that thread, a physically impossible event. This is your first warning regarding a clear violation of the principle of charity and therefore my policy is on standby,

http://debate.org...

Your question,

"what the miracles I provide have to do in order to be considered non-Christian"

is a loaded one and so therefore I cannot answer it. For there are an infinite number of possible miracles that would contradict Christianity. None of which we've reason to believe as yet. Perhaps if you list such miracles we can take a critical look at them along with the resurrection. That will of course utilize McCullghs well established and academically rigorous criterion, which you don't seem to care for.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:40:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 10:32:05 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:11:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:02:22 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:51:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:




Things that you claim as "silly tactics" might as well be well reasoned arguments that you just simply can't find a way to defeat. Simple sneering at an argument does nothing to undercut it, no matter how postmodern you consider yourself to be.

There are criteria for identifying a miracle which I went at length to defend here,

http://debate.org...

There is also McCullaghs's criteria for historical truths for any historical claim to be thrown against. If the historicity of Christ sticks, and your historical claims don't. well then I can walk away confident in the historicity of Christ while you continue to sneer.

I'm not sneering at the argument. I'm asking you to give a proper justification ahead of time so that I don't have to listen to nonsense about how non-Christian miracles were secretly Christian miracles. Are the miracles supposed to disprove Christianity? I want to know what the criteria are.

That's prejudicial sneering if I've ever seen it! :-)

Now McCullagh lists six criteria which historians use in testing historical descriptions: explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, ad hocness, accord with accepted beliefs, and superiority to rival hypotheses. Find it here,

C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 19.

I don't know what you mean by this question,

"Are the miracles supposed to disprove Christianity?"

What miracles?

Will you stop posting irrelevant things and answer the question?

I have answered the questions, perhaps if your questions aren't really reflecting what you intend to be answered, then learn to word sentences more carefully, lest you be misunderstood. I'm not your emotional shaman.

LOL, you're one to talk about wording sentences improperly. I only asked one question-how do we prove if a miracle is incompatible with Christianity. I never asked you what a miracle was. Please show me the text that was improperly worded such that I implied this. If you cannot find it, then I will flag you as a troll and make a thread about you.
Why is this so difficult for you? I don't care about some literary professor's definition of a miracle. I am asking you what the miracles I provide have to do in order to be considered non-Christian. Why is this so difficult to understand?

I never gave a literary professor's definition of a miracle, I gave my own in that thread, a physically impossible event. This is your first warning regarding a clear violation of the principle of charity and therefore my policy is on standby,

No, it's not a violation of the principle of charity because I'm not taking your argument in the weakest sense. I simply claimed that you posted a professor's definition of a miracle. You obviously have no idea what the principle of charity of actually entails.

By the way, everybody knows that that thread is just an attempt to beg for attention. If you recall, you already flagged me as a troll in the past and promised to never discuss anything with me again. I think that lasted for about a week and a half.
http://debate.org...

Your question,

"what the miracles I provide have to do in order to be considered non-Christian"

is a loaded one and so therefore I cannot answer it. For there are an infinite number of possible miracles that would contradict Christianity. None of which we've reason to believe as yet. Perhaps if you list such miracles we can take a critical look at them along with the resurrection. That will of course utilize McCullghs well established and academically rigorous criterion, which you don't seem to care for.

No, it isn't loaded. It's a very simple question. You don't want to provide any criteria because you're afraid that I'll produce evidence of such a miracle and thereby shatter your faith. I refuse to present any evidence until I know exactly what type of miracle will contradict Christianity.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 11:03:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 10:40:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:32:05 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:11:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:02:22 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:51:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:




Things that you claim as "silly tactics" might as well be well reasoned arguments that you just simply can't find a way to defeat. Simple sneering at an argument does nothing to undercut it, no matter how postmodern you consider yourself to be.

There are criteria for identifying a miracle which I went at length to defend here,

http://debate.org...

There is also McCullaghs's criteria for historical truths for any historical claim to be thrown against. If the historicity of Christ sticks, and your historical claims don't. well then I can walk away confident in the historicity of Christ while you continue to sneer.

I'm not sneering at the argument. I'm asking you to give a proper justification ahead of time so that I don't have to listen to nonsense about how non-Christian miracles were secretly Christian miracles. Are the miracles supposed to disprove Christianity? I want to know what the criteria are.

That's prejudicial sneering if I've ever seen it! :-)

Now McCullagh lists six criteria which historians use in testing historical descriptions: explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, ad hocness, accord with accepted beliefs, and superiority to rival hypotheses. Find it here,

C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 19.

I don't know what you mean by this question,

"Are the miracles supposed to disprove Christianity?"

What miracles?

Will you stop posting irrelevant things and answer the question?

I have answered the questions, perhaps if your questions aren't really reflecting what you intend to be answered, then learn to word sentences more carefully, lest you be misunderstood. I'm not your emotional shaman.

LOL, you're one to talk about wording sentences improperly. I only asked one question-how do we prove if a miracle is incompatible with Christianity. I never asked you what a miracle was. Please show me the text that was improperly worded such that I implied this. If you cannot find it, then I will flag you as a troll and make a thread about you.

Because I've given more arguments and resources, I'm indifferent to you flagging me as a troll just as you ought to be indifferent to my flagging you as a troll, since you're obviously reminding me like one.

I've answered your question with a response that requires you to cite examples rather than merely repeat your question.

Why is this so difficult for you? I don't care about some literary professor's definition of a miracle. I am asking you what the miracles I provide have to do in order to be considered non-Christian. Why is this so difficult to understand?

I never gave a literary professor's definition of a miracle, I gave my own in that thread, a physically impossible event. This is your first warning regarding a clear violation of the principle of charity and therefore my policy is on standby,

No, it's not a violation of the principle of charity because I'm not taking your argument in the weakest sense. I simply claimed that you posted a professor's definition of a miracle. You obviously have no idea what the principle of charity of actually entails.

I've already cited to clear instances of your violation. Shape up missy.


By the way, everybody knows that that thread is just an attempt to beg for attention. If you recall, you already flagged me as a troll in the past and promised to never discuss anything with me again. I think that lasted for about a week and a half.
http://debate.org...

I forgot, thanks for reminding me. You're now given your third and final warning,

http://debate.org...

Good bye.


Your question,

"what the miracles I provide have to do in order to be considered non-Christian"

is a loaded one and so therefore I cannot answer it. For there are an infinite number of possible miracles that would contradict Christianity. None of which we've reason to believe as yet. Perhaps if you list such miracles we can take a critical look at them along with the resurrection. That will of course utilize McCullghs well established and academically rigorous criterion, which you don't seem to care for.

No, it isn't loaded. It's a very simple question. You don't want to provide any criteria because you're afraid that I'll produce evidence of such a miracle and thereby shatter your faith. I refuse to present any evidence until I know exactly what type of miracle will contradict Christianity.