Brian63

I'm reading some Christian apologetics (Scaling the Secular City at the moment, which I am finding enjoyable), and they often state that their evidential arguments (fine-tuning, first-cause, design, etc.) converge together to build a stronger case for theism. Also, each of those arguments (if successful) reveal a unique attribute of God that the other ones do not.

However, none of those arguments themselves establish the Christian conception of God, but just a more generic conception of God. When combined with historical apologetic arguments such as the reliability of the gospels, the resurrection, and fulfilled prophecy they do point to the Christian God.

My trouble with following this is that it seems these apologists are admitting that the historical arguments have a weakness to them. If the Gospels and the Bible in general can be shown to be historically trustworthy and reliable, the fulfilled prophecies can be shown to have strong evidential support, and the resurrection of Jesus can be established, then it makes all of those other arguments (design, first-cause, fine-tuning, etc.) obsolete and unnecessary. We can already know all the qualities that those other theological arguments establish, just by examining the text of the Bible. We can determine that God was the "first cause" by reading Genesis 1, and assume that he also fine-tuned and designed the universe, as well as serves as the source of morality (rendering the Moral argument obsolete), no?

It seems that spending time trying to build these cosmological arguments and others is unnecessary, because establishing the text of the Bible as reliable would take care of all of them at once.

Brian

ManM

Brian63,
Historical arguments are limited by time. On top of that, history is often revised and convoluted by those who keep the books. Just an accusation of such tampering is enough to cast doubt on a historical claim. In time, history becomes a matter of faith and as such is disputable and unconvincing. Furthermore, the chances of there being a clear resolution in a historical debate are slim to none given that we don't have a time machine yet. However, philosophical or metaphysical proofs are not as vulnerable. They appeal to our reason and/or nature as human beings. And while they may be redundant with what is in the bible they are less dependant on time.

Brian63

ManM,

In these apologetics that I am reading, they often make it sound as if the evidence for the Resurrection is overwhelming, and critics have been unable to offer sound counterarguments. "The Case for Christ" comes to mind as an example of this, as well as "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". Granted, these are very "light" apologetics, but they do not even mention all these other evidential cosmological arguments, yet still believe that they provide a strong case for Christianity (apparently in spite of your point that "historical arguments are limited by time"). I do not see what these other evidential (non-historical) apologetics add to the case for Christianity, beyond the historical apologetics.

Brian

ManM

Brian63,
Hrm, I think I see what you are saying now. If the historical arguments are good then the metaphysical ones are redundant. If the metaphysical ones are good, we still need the historical ones. My only thoughts on this are that some might need the metaphysical arguments before they allow the possibility of the historical ones. If someone does not believe a resurrection is possible you will have a hard time convincing them that a resurrection happened.

Brian63

That does sum it all up in a couple sentences, much better than I was able to.

That sounds reasonable.

Thanks!

Brian

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: Brian63 ]</p>

Tercel

Brian,
The case for Christianity over a generic God concept does not depend soley on the "historical apologetic arguments such as the reliability of the gospels, the resurrection, and fulfilled prophecy" etc.
Rather, there is also evidence available from Christianity in the world today. From the religious experiences and testimonies Christians and from miracles within Christianity today we can gain evidence for Christianity over a generic God.

The metaphysical arguments are important first to establish the existence or likelihood of existence of the generic God. This gives us something to evaluate the historical and current evidence against.

HRG

The problem with the metaphysical arguments - assuming for a moment *) that they are valid - is that they are lacking uniqueness and identity proofs.

They all are of the following form, where i is an index which numbers the arguments:

Argument_i:

"For the reasons R_i there exists an entity with property P_i. We call this entity God".

The flaw is obvious: the last word should read God_i. There is no reason why the entities whose existence is claimed by the various metaphysical arguments should be identical.

The claim that the arguments just show "different facets of God" is totally unsupported, IMHO.

Regards,
HRG.

*) but not a minute longer!

Tercel

I don't know about you HRG, but Occam's Razor seems to me to be at least some support for considering the entities identical not separate.

philechat

Tercel:
Ever heard of faith healing in Islamic cultures? The successful shamanistic rituals depicted by the anthropologists? Sickness healed by Buddhist chants and Taoist magic? Miracle-working by Hindu gurus? The Progamon (sp?) where Apollo allegedly healed blindness, lameness, and others? Ancestor spirit possession in Chinese and Native American societies?

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

Tercel

Yes I've heard of those things. Perhaps some of them really occured (I have no objection to God or other spiritual powers causing miracles in non-Christian cultures), but I've not seen sufficient evidence to convince me.