Hans

I thought perhaps I might find someone who would be interested in saving the non-believer that is me. I will admit that I feel no need for a creator or that one can be shown, but just the same, if one is I will have no choice but to believe.

With a little thought I have identified what are the three reasons I'm incapable of believing in Christianity:

1. I'm unable to confirm that the testimony offered about the life and times of Jesus is from actual witnesses.

The above must be shown before I can consider the below.

2. I'm unable to confirm that the witnesses' claims are factual.

The above must be shown before I can consider the below.

3. I'm unable to confirm that the claims made by Jesus (as per the witness testimony) concerning God and Heaven are true.

If you can demonstrate each of these three things you'll have saved a sinner, probably many others as well. So if you're interested please begin!


EDIT: Discussion has already revealed that items 1 and 2 are red herrings (irrelevant). Item 3 is the only item that would need to be shown, if it can even be shown.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Hans ]</p>

Malaclypse the Younger

I think you have placed too weak of a burden of proof for conversion.

In order to prove those things, you would have to assume naturalism, so that you can draw inferences about causes from the existence of evidence. However, such an assumption would contradict a priori the issue at hand (supernaturalism), so the entire exercise is self-contradictory.

Hans

What stronger burden is there than confirmation? If something is confirmable it would also seem irrefutable.

Is that to say that our world can not exist as it is, including causes, inferences, and existances of evidence if a deity also exists? One excludes the other? I'm most interested if this is so. And how it is so.

WJ

Hans!

(I'm a Christian but no preacher) I'll just share a couple quick thoughts, if you will.

Go ahead and consider Soren Kierkegaard's philosophy for a moment. (Apparently he was ex-communicated from his organized religion at the time somewhere around his coming-out.) In a similar fashion to Kant, he felt like certain apriori arguments for the existence of God could not ultimately prove that existence of this Being [called God]. They both were correct. However, they both took different directions from there. Kant did not take the aposterior leap; Soren did. (Nor was Kant willing to make any metaphysical inference.)

Soren felt like since his own truth [feeling about God's existence]was subjective, and that of course his interpretation of Abraham's sacrifice being completely absurd to the common man(after reading the event from the Bible)that that 'dispair' thru fideism, was the end-result. In other words, after reading about Chrisianity, there was too much unexplained phenomenon, contradiction, absurdity and so on that he believed it would not be appropriate, nor did he feel capable, to convince anyone about the so-called apriori concept of God.

just a very brief synopsis here....

Walrus

jpbrooks

I agree with the Fideists up to a point. No one individual has "all the answers" all by himself or herself no matter what view he or she chooses to adopt. So, at some point, one must choose a stance based on the belief that that stance is true.
But the question that then arises is at what point should a "leap" based on belief be taken?
I'm no expert on Kierkegaard, but I suspect that he considered making the "leap" anywhere other than at the outset to be arbitrary. But the problem with taking the "leap" at the outset is that it leaves one with no reason, other than personal preference, for choosing to adopt one view over any other.

It's a perplexing problem.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

eliza doolittle

I explore this possibility- that Jesus existed and was a spiritual seeker, maybe a spiritual finder. One of the tales I like best about him is his rage at the religious people of his time who tried to be authoritative about how to do God. Maybe most of the words about Jesus were and are written by deluded and power hungry gate keepers. Maybe he didn't proclaim himself to be so special, or divine. Why pay any attention to him then? Maybe he was a lot like you and me...unable to swallow a second hand pre-packaged "spiritual" growth. I wonder if Believing is less valid than experiencing. I imagined that I was experiencing the divine through music, through it happening in me even though I am a mess. I felt some gratitude, some wonder. I loved my music teacher, who is a Christian and minister's wife. I thought music in her had to do with her openess to god, and that music is god's language. I now think that if any of this is about god, the moments of exaltation are not to grab at or trumpet or define as IT. I think all the other dark and wormy and scared and lonely experiences in life need not be so OTHer than or apart from the good, or what seems good. onetime I saw a little ceramic thing in a museum that said, " light seeking light is light beguiled." I think the nature of light is to go boldly into the dark andat's all fer now.

Malaclypse the Younger

Hans

Well, at best your criteria could prove that some sort of unusual naturalistic event occured. They seems too weak, however, to prove the actual existence of the christian god.

It is self-contradictory to prove supernaturalism from evidential arguments, which require the assumption of naturalism. As noted above, the best you could prove about ancient history under the necessary assumption of naturalism would be that some sort of unusual naturalistic phenomenon occurred.

Malaclypse the Younger

Ender makes the case that Kierkegaard's approach to christianity is, at least, intellectually honest; more so than the ontological/evidential "proofs" of a god's existence.

Of course, adoption of Kierkegaard's approach means abandoning rationality in the formation of one's beliefs. One must not only arbitrarily choose a metaphysical system (true of both the atheist and theist), but the theist must also explicitly reject rationality. Ultimately, Kierkegaard does well in explaining his own beliefs and subjectively justifying them, but it seems Kierkegaard gives the rationalist, who has a different subjective preference, no ultimately interesting reason to change her mind and to convert.

Malaclypse the Younger

It is my position, not that the adoption of reason is somehow "compelled", but rather it is the worldview I and many others have chosen. I understand that some choose a different worldview, and I respect that.

The worldview of rationality has the advantage of denying authority. Once a rational worldview is chosen, there is no subsequent necessity to accept the statements of other people as true only on their innate authority (meaning authority in the philosophically technical sense that a statement is held true because some authority states it). I believe this characteristic is necessary to employ democracy; democracy also denies the epistemological and ethical authority of others.

I have two general objections to religious worldviews, which by definition are dogmatic and authoritarian at some level (sometimes cleverly concealed). First, given the popularity of rationality, some adherents of religious worldviews try to corrupt and coopt the appearance of rationality to their own ends. I find this approach dishonest and contemptible. Second, I oppose the political advancement of religious worldviews, because I see them as fundamentally opposed to democracy; again, this opposition is sometimes cleverly concealed.

I believe in a metaethic of intellectual honesty that applies to both rational and religious worldviews. I have no problem with people like Kierkegaard, who are intellectually honest about their belief systems. However, I denounce the intellectual dishonesty of those that would conceal or distort, whether maliciously or through ignorance, the nature and consequence of their worldview in order to win converts.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Paul5204

Hans:

You posted:

"With a little thought I have identified what are the three reasons I'm incapable of believing in Christianity:

1. I'm unable to confirm that the testimony offered about the life and times of Jesus is from actual witnesses.

The above must be shown before I can consider the below.

2. I'm unable to confirm that the witnesses' claims are factual.

The above must be shown before I can consider the below.

3. I'm unable to confirm that the claims made by Jesus (as per the witness testimony) concerning God and Heaven are true.

If you can demonstrate each of these three things you'll have saved a sinner, probably many others as well. So if you're interested please begin!"

We will start with item 1. Query: are you able to confirm that the testimony offered about the life and times of, say, Caesar Augustus is from actual eyewitnesses? If not, what the consequence?