Tortorella's Rant Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Well there is a lot of "evidence" (be it scientific, historical, or philosophical) put forth by guys like John Lennox, William Lane Craig, Mike Licona, N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, Alvin Plantinga, among many others...whether that "evidence" is sufficient for belief is up to the individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 Like pick from the variety of sources I gave you and check them out. Lennox and Licona in particular have some great books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Debate starts at 9:00....skip the bs intro. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p1mDPQw1Yk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 Yeah I recently saw this and have it on my "watch later" list. I did watch Lennox's talk on miracles more recently this summer, and then his debate with Dawkins also back in June or July. I don't have time to watch a whole debate for a couple weeks but I think both Hitchens and Lennox are brilliant guys so it should be interesting once I get around to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fathoms Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 It is extremely arrogant for you, a finite being, to have passed judgement on a supreme being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Is this most of your argument? Suffering disproves God? If I debunk this objection, would you believe in God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 A number of philosophers and scholars on ancient manuscript.. cultural anthropologists and ethics teachers. Like many atheists who use their science text books and atheist references, theists have their own sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 So the sources for your intimate knowledge of the supreme being come from opinions/observations of individuals reading ancient books written by ancient people and scholars who study the morals/behaviours and lifestyles of people? All I see are sources that start and end with humanity. Where is the divine knowledge coming from specifically? Do you think it is morally right to teach people about a subject of which you have no direct knowledge? Especially when that lesson could potentially be life-changing to those particularly vulnerable like children? Yes scientists have their sources and thanks to peer review they are under constant scrutiny. How can you even compare religious sources to scientific sources? My take on the difference of validity: Scientific Source - A testable model of manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. Religious Source - Ancient and unverifiable literature that initiates an emotional (non-rational) response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Feel free to enlighten us with this evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 No. Biblical source is primary source material that has more textual criticism than the same ancient text scholars use to believe in such things as Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. Primary source. You know what that is? Scholarly work includes historians, cultural anthropologists, sociologist, and professors of ancient Hebrew and Greek. Secular scholars are included in these researchers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Is it so foolish to believe something without empirical evidence? As a hockey fan, don't you have a faith and hope that your team will win the Stanley Cup? From a lack of empirical evidence, it's clear that some hockey teams may never win the cup. Is that the belief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 No. Biblical source is primary source material that has more textual criticism than the same ancient text scholars use to believe in such things as Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. Primary source. You know what that is? Scholarly work includes historians, cultural anthropologists, sociologist, and professors of ancient Hebrew and Greek. Secular scholars are included in these researchers. You speak as if there is no peer to peer scholarly work in the religious sense. By saying this, it shows me that not only are you ignorant to the kind of scholarly work done on ancient manuscript, but also very ignorant in the means of current day discussion and the dialogue pulled out from these findings. I do watch debates on youtube, and seriously if I'm as crazy as you think I am, don't you think the whole world would be atheist at this point? 5 million people are all having the same delusion right? (BTW how much MORE improbable would that be?) I bolded this point - which is your problem (as is every atheist's problem). The problem of certainty. Is it so foolish to believe something without empirical evidence? As a hockey fan, don't you have a faith and hope that your team will win the Stanley Cup? From a lack of empirical evidence, it's clear that some hockey teams may never win the cup. Is that the belief? Is it so foolish to believe in a God without empirical evidence that points to a God? I don't think so. The supernatural God requires something outside natural evidence - is that logical? Yes it is. So what is this supernatural requirement for the belief in God? It is something that is outside the naturalistic realm. Think about it. The real foolishness is requiring natural and reproducible evidence for the existence of a supernatural and extraordinary being. Following me? Such a supernatural and extraordinary being will require something unnatural for humans to do. To make a leap of faith and to do something irrational. To believe without seeing. This is faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 I do watch debates on youtube, and seriously if I'm as crazy as you think I am, don't you think the whole world would be atheist at this point? 5 million people are all having the same delusion right? (BTW how much MORE improbable would that be?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 I wish more theists used Lennox's definition of faith: "Faith is not a leap in the dark; it’s the exact opposite. It’s a commitment based on evidence… It is irrational to reduce all faith to blind faith and then subject it to ridicule. That provides a very anti-intellectual and convenient way of avoiding intelligent discussion.” - John Lennox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Debate starts at 9:00....skip the bs intro. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p1mDPQw1Yk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 I wish more theists used Lennox's definition of faith: "Faith is not a leap in the dark; it’s the exact opposite. It’s a commitment based on evidence… It is irrational to reduce all faith to blind faith and then subject it to ridicule. That provides a very anti-intellectual and convenient way of avoiding intelligent discussion.” - John Lennox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 I wish more theists used Lennox's definition of faith: "Faith is not a leap in the dark; it’s the exact opposite. It’s a commitment based on evidence… It is irrational to reduce all faith to blind faith and then subject it to ridicule. That provides a very anti-intellectual and convenient way of avoiding intelligent discussion.” - John Lennox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.