Does Good come from God II – Harris vs Lane

_{David L. Hagen

April 8, 2011

Atheism, Creationism, Design inference, Ethics, Evolutionary psychology, Intelligent Design, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Psychology, Religion, Science}

Part 9 of 9 – Harris vs Craig – Does Good Come From God
———————————————
Apologetics 315 has posted the audio link the Full Debate MP3 Audio here (120 min)
———————–

I found the debate a fascinating test of technical debating skills vs red herrings and emotional appeals. (PS please post links to transcripts when available.)

This debate provides an interesting framework within which to examine the ID related question:
Does Information come from an Intelligent Agent?

Harris claimed that the axioms of science are accepted and obvious to everyone and provide the basis for proving there is no god. However, atheists commonly presuppose naturalistic materialism.
How can one scientifically examine if an intelligent agent exists or is causative, if one a priori excludes intelligent agents from possible causes?

I posit that in testing for an intelligent cause, one must presuppose:

1) Intelligent agents exist. (e.g. humans)
2) Intelligent agents can influence nature. (e.g. this post)
3) Some intelligent intervention can be detected. (e.g., forensics)
4) An intelligent agent may be a cause for an observed phenomena.

—————————————————-

April 11 See JonnyB’s follow on post:

Sam Harris Delivers Riveting Oration Championing Deism

Comments

CannuckianYankee, you're assuming that the gospel writers were attempting to write history. Certainly Matthew is not, at least in the first five chapters: he's writing a kind of fable in which Jesus is a new Moses, complete with an an ambiguous birth, an endangered infancy, an exodus from Egypt, a period of wandering in the desert, and a declaration of law from a mountain. Your adherence to the straightjacket of legal testimony is a modernist add-on to an ancient text. It does not impact the real truth of the gospels to say they are not historical truth.QuiteID_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

jgray2, You have brought up some interesting points. but apparently this thread has gone off in another direction. It would be interesting to further such a discussion though. :) QuiteID, Have you ever had to do an investigation where you interview several witnesses? I have done so on many occasions, and there's a phenomenon, which arises. Oftentimes several witnesses will testify to the same event with different details. Sometimes the person doing the investigation will assume that having different details means that one of the witnesses is lying, because of the assumption that different details means contradiction. However, with further investigation, quite often an investigator is able to harmonize the differing testimony of two differing witnesses, which quite often exonerates them, and leads to maybe a 3rd or 4th suspect among the witnesses, or from another party. This is what I believe is going on in the gospels. I think you require further investigation in determining them to be contradictory.CannuckianYankee_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Excellent points at 118.CannuckianYankee_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Bruce: "The only reasonable conclusion is that reason by itself is powerless to ascertain truth." Question is: did you use reason to arrive at that conclusion? It would make a good stand-up routine.CannuckianYankee_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Response to #118: You're missing the point. If reason is capable of revealing truth, then these men should agree with you. You assert that reason can reveal the truth, yet what you apparently mean is that reason AS USED BY YOU, and maybe a few others, is capable of revealing the truth. Can't you see how useless that is? Either it's a false idea that reason can reveal truth, or else reason is basically useless, since the vast majority of the most brilliant men in the history of philosophy are apparently unable use it correctly. Forgive me if I find the notion that only you and a few others are capable of using reason correctly a bit hard to swallow. The only reasonable conclusion is that reason by itself is powerless to ascertain truth.Bruce David_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Onlookers, I'm going to attempt to illustrate Bruce's thinking in context with the Craig/Harris debate. He states at 116: "The idea that you can arrive at any kind of truth through reason alone is definitely nonsense. I have presented two pieces of evidence in support of this: first, that if reason alone could arrive at truth, then philosophers would long ago have agreed on what that truth is," It does not follow, first of all that if philosophers disagree on what is truth that at least one of those philosophers cannot know what that truth is. This is Harris' error regarding religion as well. Therefore, simply because there are a large number of religious beliefs, which contradict one another, does not mean that at least one of those beliefs can't be true. Bruce illustrates this kind of thinking here (which is parallel with Harris' own thinking): "So what is the cause of so much slaughter if it isn’t religion? I believe it is the illusion of separation. We have forgotten that we are all one–one humanity, one human family (one with all of life, actually). This plays out in religion as the belief that my religion is better than your religion." No, not so. There is a huge difference between the fact that we are all one human family, and ought to treat each other with dignity and respect; and the particularism of certain religions - Christianity being one. Christianity does not teach that we should slaughter those who don't conform to Christianity; it in fact teaches the opposite. That there have been those in history who have slaughtered in the name of Christianity does not diminish Christianity itself, but diminishes those very one's who did not follow the Christian way, but were influenced by the ways of the world. Furthermore, it emphasizes two things that are true about Christianity: 1) Jesus own prophecy that there would be those who do evil in his name, and 2) That the Kingdom of God is not of this world. You don't arrive at the kingdom through slaughter, and those who believe so will meet their own demise. So when Bruce states: "The idea that you can arrive at any kind of truth through reason alone is definitely nonsense," what he apparently means is that one arrives at truth by an emotional appeal through manipulating and twisting reason to conform to one's own emotional proclivities. This is also Harris' tactic. It didn't work in the debate, and it's certainly not working here at UD.CannuckianYankee_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @115, thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it very much.StephenB_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

---Bruce: “Or let me put it another way. How is it that reason is capable of ascertaining the truth, yet Kant, Schopenhauer, Lock, Berkeley, Hume, Russell, Whitehead, Wittgenstein, Bergson, Sartre, Santayana, Hegel, and Ibn al ‘Arabi all somehow missed it? How is it that you know what the proper use of reason is to ascertain truth, yet all these giants of philosophy didn’t?” If you want me to explain the errors of a given philosopher’s system, you will have to pick one at a time. Just to get started, you can get a feel for the errors of Hume, Kant, and Locke by reading “Little Errors in the Beginning” by Mortimer Adler. It’s on the internet. Meanwhile, reflect on this fact: Kant, who was probably the most influential of the bunch, told us that we cannot know anything about ultimate reality. Now consider the fact that his philosophy contradicts itself since he would have to know something about reality to make the claim. Or what about Russell? He challenged theism’s proposition that everything that exists must have a cause by asking “Well then, who made God?” Obviously, he forgot that God is defined as the “uncaused” cause. Or what about Hume, who, in one breath, tells us that cause and effect do not exist in nature, and, in another breath, tells us miracles violate the laws of cause and effect. The academy loves this kind of idiocy. I don’t. These men were not great philosophers in the sense that they were profound thinkers. They were great in terms of their influence and fame, but they were simply promoting old errors with new labels. As Fulton J. Sheen once said, “It is a very good practice when one is absolutely sure that he has a brand new idea that no one ever thought of before to go back and see how the Greeks put it.” ---“Doesn’t it give at least a little pause? Isn’t there even occasionally a little chink in the armor of your certainty that you might ask the question, “Is there maybe something I might be missing here?” Don’t you think that question is a little vague to elicit a meaningful answer?StephenB_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Or let me put it another way. How is it that reason is capable of ascertaining the truth, yet Kant, Schopenhauer, Lock, Berkeley, Hume, Russell, Whitehead, Wittgenstein, Bergson, Sartre, Santayana, Hegel, and Ibn al 'Arabi all somehow missed it? How is it that you know what the proper use of reason is to ascertain truth, yet all these giants of philosophy didn't? Doesn't it give at least a little pause? Isn't there even occasionally a little chink in the armor of your certainty that you might ask the question, "Is there maybe something I might be missing here?"Bruce David_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "I guess I am with CY, I am inclined not to waste any more of my time with this kind of nonsense." I agree that it is nonsense. What we disagree on is which one of us is guilty of it. The idea that you can arrive at any kind of truth through reason alone is definitely nonsense. I have presented two pieces of evidence in support of this: first, that if reason alone could arrive at truth, then philosophers would long ago have agreed on what that truth is, and second, that mathematics has demonstrated the only reliable method of generating valid inference, which always involves starting from axioms and definitions. You consistently ignore both of them. I think, like with Bornagain, we have nothing more to say to each other.Bruce David_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

StephenB, once again I am impressed with your ability to so clearly articulate complex issues in such a easily graspable manner. It truly is a breath of fresh air, especially when having to deal with people who seem to be pathologically bent on the exact opposite goal.bornagain77_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

---Bruce: "I just finished looking back through my comments and I couldn’t find any in which I said you were wrong about whether Luke and Matthew contradict each other regarding the circumstances of Jesus’ birth. I did in replies to other posters state that I stood by my conclusion that they flat out contradict each other, however." Once again, you are trying to bend reality to conform to your wishes. Your exact words were, "No, you are wrong." Of course, I was not wrong, but that doesn't matter for the moment, nor does it matter who you were arguing against. The point is that you trust your "inner knowing as a standard for arriving at truth," but you don't trust everyone else's inner knowing as a standard for arriving at truth, otherwise, there would be no dispute. One's inner knowing cannot be an arbiter to settle intellectual disputes, because inner knowing is subjective. Only the objective first principles of right reason can do it. I ---"To answer your question, that which I take to be true a priori is valid for me. That which you take to be true is valid for you." Yes, I know you believe that, but what you don't understand is that what we take to be valid or sound may not be valid or sound. We have to test our assumptions against reason and reality, neither of which you respect. --"It seems pretty clear to me that, for example, you take it as a given that the Bible is the revealed word of God and as such can contain no contradictions." It isn't a given. It is a proposition that can be tested, verified or falsified. If someone thinks he or she can find a contradiction in the Gospels, they are free to present their evidence. Since I know that this proposition is false, I a free to refute it, and, as I have demonstrated, I am prepared to do that. --"I have no problem with that as long as you recognize that it is an a priori assumption on your part and not something that can be arrived at through reason." Whether a given set of propositions contain contradictions can be proven in no other way other than using logic and reason. ---"It should be obvious, however, that any conclusions you draw that depend on that a priori assumption will not be accepted by me, since I make no such assumption." You think everyone is correct in the context of their own assumptions and there is no objective means of discerning who is right and who is wrong, except, of course, when someone exercises their own "inner knowing" and draw conclusions different from yours. In that case, you will devote days of your time to show them how wrong they are. I guess I am with CY, I am inclined not to waste any more of my time with this kind of nonsense.StephenB_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Bornagain: If that smiley face is an olive branch, I accept it. Can we be friends and just agree to disagree?Bruce David_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee: You write, quoting Harris, “A glance at history, or at the pages of any newspaper, reveals that ideas which divide one group of human beings from another, only to unite them in slaughter, generally have their roots in religion. It seems that if our species ever eradicates itself through war, it will not be because it was written in the stars but because it was written in our books; it is what we do with words like “God” and “paradise” and “sin” in the present that will determine our future.” So what is the cause of so much slaughter if it isn't religion? I believe it is the illusion of separation. We have forgotten that we are all one--one humanity, one human family (one with all of life, actually). This plays out in religion as the belief that my religion is better than your religion. From there it is a short step (a step not always, taken, certainly, but often enough, unfortunately) to the belief that God (or Allah, or Jehovah, or Krishna) wants, nay even demands, that we impose our "true" religion on those "other" people through force. An alternative script is to see those others as threatening our religion and conclude that force, often preemptive force, is a necessary response. But as you point out, you don't need religion for this kind of tragedy to occur. Hitler's belief for example, rooted in the same illusion of separation, that the Aryans were the master race, resulted in the same kind of slaughter (or worse, actually).Bruce David_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

Bruce you state; 'I think at this point we really have nothing more to say to each other.' If only that were true. :)bornagain77_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Bornagain: "Frankly Bruce it is hard for me to see how you can be so blind to your own blindness." Well, I could say the same about you, so I think at this point we really have nothing more to say to each other.Bruce David_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

Mind if I steer this debate back on topic? To get a clear perspective of where Harris stands regarding religion: "A glance at history, or at the pages of any newspaper, reveals that ideas which divide one group of human beings from another, only to unite them in slaughter, generally have their roots in religion. It seems that if our species ever eradicates itself through war, it will not be because it was written in the stars but because it was written in our books; it is what we do with words like “God” and “paradise” and “sin” in the present that will determine our future." "Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed." (Harris, The End Of Faith) So Harris begins his book with sweeping and emotional pronouncements on the evils of religion, without once considering the evils and wars that have been started as the result of atheism - remember Vietnam, Korea, Pearl Harbor and WWII in general; Stalin, Hitler...What do these have to do with religion? What religious creed did Hitler follow other than his perceived destiny as Fuhrer of an everlasting and secular Third Reich? And these words of Harris are merely from the introduction to his book - and in that there's plenty more such pronouncements. It's not surprising that he can't muster a challenging response to the reasoned arguments of WL Craig.CannuckianYankee_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Bruce David you state, 'In sum, I appealing to Biblical prophesy as a warrant for the truth of the entire Bible is simply not compelling to me.' First I hold all your 5 premises as invalid, but for the sake of argument let's look at the hypocrisy of your judgement if we were to presume any of your premises to be true. first, You downplay the significance of perhaps the most powerful prophetic scripture known to modern man, A prophecy of Israel becoming a nation, again, after an extended exile of a few thousand years (a genuine miracle that Israel should even stay together as a culture), a fulfilled prophecy which in itself has 'interwoven' the entire meta-narrative of the Bible!!! A meta-narrative which Jesus himself prophesied here,,, Luke 21-24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. ,,, and yet even though these prophesies are in black and white, interwoven towards the meta-narrative of the entire Bible, with no possibility of misinterpretation (though you have certainly tried your very dogmatic best to misinterpret them LOL),,, You have the audacity to say Jesus predicted His return within the lifetime of the apostles???,,, Bruce YOU ARE the one who is not judging correctly! Jesus' teachings are full of parables of a 'extended time' to his second coming. Yet you twist certain scripture severely to your bias of wanting to find fault, all whilst ignoring the meta-narrative that testifies against your extremely 'trivial' bias. Frankly Bruce it is hard for me to see how you can be so blind to your own blindness.bornagain77_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

Bruce David, you are one confused puppy!kuartus_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

StephenB: "You did, after all, say I was “wrong.” Are your initial assumptions, personal experiences, and inner knowings better than mine?" I just finished looking back through my comments and I couldn't find any in which I said you were wrong about whether Luke and Matthew contradict each other regarding the circumstances of Jesus' birth. I did in replies to other posters state that I stood by my conclusion that they flat out contradict each other, however. To answer your question, that which I take to be true a priori is valid for me. That which you take to be true is valid for you. It seems pretty clear to me that, for example, you take it as a given that the Bible is the revealed word of God and as such can contain no contradictions. I have no problem with that as long as you recognize that it is an a priori assumption on your part and not something that can be arrived at through reason. It should be obvious, however, that any conclusions you draw that depend on that a priori assumption will not be accepted by me, since I make no such assumption.Bruce David_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee, welcome back. I have missed your contributions.StephenB_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

Bornagain, it just can't enter the realm of possibility for you that what is absolutely compelling evidence for you just is not for someone else, can it? I have given you what to me are very good reasons for rejecting the conclusions you come to based on your evidence. You ignore them, call them trivial, and accuse me of having "rationalized [them] away with whatever excuse [I] can imagine." You are simply wrong. The beliefs I have come to are the result of a lifetime of study and contemplation, of arduous work on myself through several different spiritual disciplines, and a great deal of thought. Your attempt to trivialize it only demonstrates your narrow mindedness and inability to step out of your little box of fundamentalist Christian dogma, even in your imagination. But don't worry. In twenty or thirty more lifetimes, it will be amazing how much your horizons will have expanded.Bruce David_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

---Bruce David: "You see, you can prove anything as long as you make the appropriate initial assumptions (which I labeled axioms and definitions in my proof)." So, if I make the initial assumption that Jupiter can exist and not exist at the same time, I can prove that point, and likewise, if I make the opposite initial assumption, I can prove that point as well. That is, indeed, a liberating logical structure. ---"For the record, I accept all my definitions and axioms in that proof as true, based on personal experience, faith, and inner knowing. However, I don’t expect that you will." OK. I now have a better idea of the reasoning process that led you to conclude that the Gospels contain contradictions and that evil doesn't exist. If your initial assumptions, and personal experiences are calling the shots, if you reject the non-negotiable principles of right reason, and if you have made your final commitment to the process of inner knowing, I certainly don't want to spoil your party. What I don't understand, though, is why you don't acknowledge my initial assumptions, my personal experiences, and my inner knowing, all of which led me to conclude that there are no contradictions in the Gospels. You did, after all, say I was "wrong." Are your initial assumptions, personal experiences, and inner knowings better than mine?StephenB_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee: "This is an example of your methodology for determining truth – and it’s patently absurd." You completely misunderstand the point of the proof. It was not to demonstrate that there is no Hell, even though I accept the proof as valid, nor was it to demonstrate how I arrive at truth. Rather it was to demonstrate the limits of the use of reason in discovering truth. My contention is that reason BY ITSELF is powerless to arrive at truth. It has to be used in conjunction with something that is accepted as true from some source other than reason. And then, you are quite right. The conclusions that reason draws will only be as valid as the initial assumptions. It is not my method for determining truth. I believe that each of us is made in the image and likeness of God, and that this includes the capacity for knowing everything. However, when we are born into a physical body, part of the process is that we forget Who We Really Are. The point of physical existence is to remember, and this occurs very gradually, over many lifetimes. As this remembering happens, it is like veils are being lifted one by one, and we see more and more clearly into the true nature of existence. This is the process by which we finally arrive at an awareness of the Truth. It really has very little to do with reason, but paradoxically, without the capacity for reason, one is unable to utilize this knowledge effectively.Bruce David_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

Bornagain: You're not going to like this, and you will undoubtedly accuse me of stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the truth again, but I will give it one shot. There are several reasons why I do not regard fulfilled prophesy to be that persuasive: 1. The Bible, when one includes both testaments, is a book that was written by many authors over a period spanning centuries. Let's say for the sake of argument that this spectacular prophesy of the future history of Israel is actually true, as presented in the video. What does it prove? Only that one of the many authors had a vision or knew someone who had a vision of what was to come that actually panned out. So? Does that prove the validity of the writings of all the other authors of the Bible? Not to me. 2. Fulfilled prophesy is not limited solely to the Bible. Even quite ordinary people can have prophetic dreams or visions that come true. I know of some examples that happened to friends of mine, and there are many records of such things occurring. 3. Many of the prophesies that are claimed to have been fulfilled, when one examines them, are clearly open to multiple interpretations. It is often the case that they have been force fit, so to speak, to events that actually transpired. 4. Some of the prophesies regarding Jesus seem to have been force fit in reverse. For example, the authors of both Paul and Matthew knew that the prophesy regarding the coming of the Messiah had him being born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth, so they each apparently made up a story of his birth that accomplished the end of agreeing with that prophesy. Another example: the prophesies in the Old Testament regarding the coming of the Messiah do not mention that he dies on the cross, so they co-opted passages such as Isaiah 53:1-6 which do not mention a Messiah at all. 5. You may think it insignificant, but I regard Jesus' failed prophesy in Mark that his generation would see the end times and the arrival of the Kingdom of God as a major failure of Biblical prophesy to be fulfilled, particularly since it came from the lips of Jesus himself. In sum, I appealing to Biblical prophesy as a warrant for the truth of the entire Bible is simply not compelling to me.Bruce David_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

whoops, i double checked, and most of the OT prophecies about the branch are of a different Hebrew word for Branch, though there is one accurate prophecy with the right Hebrew word in Isaiah 11:1, and this is the usual applied prophecy to Jesus. Though I think that theory still holds up, especially seeing as how in Numbers 6, the Nazarite vow probably had something to do with the foundations of the name of the town, as well as it being of a lowly status, as referred to in John.jgray2_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

Bruce, "I already gave it to you–my proof that Hell doesn’t exist in #28. You see, you can prove anything as long as you make the appropriate initial assumptions (which I labeled axioms and definitions in my proof). For the record, I accept all my definitions and axioms in that proof as true, based on personal experience, faith, and inner knowing. However, I don’t expect that you will." This is an example of your methodology for determining truth - and it's patently absurd. Let's break it down: "You see, you can prove anything as long as you make the appropriate initial assumptions." IOW, anything can be true if you start with certain assumptions; whether true or not. Well if you don't start with true assumptions, nothing will be true. Problem: Bruce, anything cannot be true if you start with certain assumptions - you stated "appropriate," (not sure what you mean by that), but it seems clear that initial assumptions can be quite arbitrary according to your own preferences ("I accept all my definitions and axioms in that proof as true"). That is not proof, but satisfying one's own position without evidence. "based on personal experience, faith, and inner knowing." See this is the problem. Your truth does not start with self evident first principles of reason, which would be true for all others. Your truth is only true for you. So in your reasoning, 2+2=4 might be true for you, but it could be 2+2=6 for others. So when you say: "I already gave it to you–my proof that Hell doesn’t exist in #28." You are making an utterly meaningless statement to the rest of us, who don't share your basis for truth. Quite frankly, further discussion with you is fruitless. This post is more for the onlookers than for you.CannuckianYankee_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Bruce David, so I show evidence for the reality of the soul, the trustworthiness of NDE testimonies, the consistency of hellish accounts of Near Death Experiences in pantheistic countries, the structure of reality, and yet this matters not one iota to you for you just set up a bunch 'fluff' axioms that have your preferred conclusion built into their premises, and Wah La!!! Hell disappears for you??? Man, Bruce what in the world are you doing on an ID site??? Most people here, who believe in Design, are here because they follow the evidence wherever it leads no matter what others may think, yet you in this instance with panthesim, just like the neo-Darwinists with evolution, find evidence against your position just to be so much of a trivial thing to be rationalized away with whatever excuse you can imagine. I can tell you for sure that I certainly would not find such comfort so easily in 'devised axioms' when the evidence presented for hell against your pantheistic position was so strong, especially strong for those living in a completely foreign culture with no exposure to Christ.bornagain77_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

Right, bornagain, and the reason the gospel writers would leave out details that would corroborate the exact story of the other existing gospel is to obtain as much writing space as possible because writing scrolls was no cheap and easy task (the writer would omit certain details to convey what was missing in gospel(s) written prior). I'm sure James White mentions this issue in depth in one of his books, as does Craig.jgray2_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "Well, you said we can “prove anything” using reason, which indicates that reason isn’t very good tool for distinguishing truth from falsehood. In any case, please don’t keep me in suspense. What would that “something” be? Give me an example of this something in action and show me how it helps you draw a conclusion." I already gave it to you--my proof that Hell doesn't exist in #28. You see, you can prove anything as long as you make the appropriate initial assumptions (which I labeled axioms and definitions in my proof). For the record, I accept all my definitions and axioms in that proof as true, based on personal experience, faith, and inner knowing. However, I don't expect that you will.Bruce David_{April 11, 2011
April
04
Apr
11
11
2011
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Sam Harris Delivers Riveting Oration Championing Deism

Leave a Reply