Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
04-02-2002, 04:30 PM | #61 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Indianapolis area
Posts: 3,468
|
Bilboe,
Suppose he said obviously idiotic things? Like, "I am God?" Sorry to be rude but, if any other individual stated "I am God" you would likely consider that utterence to be "obviously idiotic." Only in the case of your religion's figurehead do you engage in special pleading that we look at his character and judge his claim to godhood based on that, rather than on verifiable outside evidence. |
04-02-2002, 06:49 PM | #62 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 247
|
Bilboe
Quote:
Quote:
Or assume it was a devious little fairy who's magical powers were limited to only appearing as a man and the acts Jesus made. The result would be the same; the Christian Bible as it is written. Now you or I certainly can not demonstrate that the scenarios I present above are true anymore than you or I could demonstrate that Jesus' claims about God as he made them are true. You see, I have addressed the tri-lemma argument. I just looked a little further than the argument wants you or I to look. That is why I said of the tri-lemma argument: "ruling out limited alternatives." Once the door is opened to the supernatural, possibilities are limited only by our imagination because we have not a reality to compare them to. {Slight problem with pushing the post reply button before I finished my post!} [ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Hans ]</p> |
||
04-02-2002, 07:31 PM | #63 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 247
|
Bilboe
Let me provide you with a converse pseudo-tri-lemma argument. a) Jesus' claims are accurate. b) Jesus' claims are inaccurate. c) The Christian Bible is not as authentic as many would like to believe. What are we to do given none of the above can be determined with any certianty. Should we adopt what is most likely? Or should we perhaps take the position that we have been provided with nothing we can confirm and therefore nothing we can believe? Or is it something else that we should do? [ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Hans ]</p> |
04-03-2002, 06:31 PM | #64 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 54
|
Bilboe: "Suppose he said obviously idiotic things?
Pomp: "Like, "I am God?" Sorry to be rude but, if any other individual stated "I am God" you would likely consider that utterence to be "obviously idiotic." Only in the case of your religion's figurehead do you engage in special pleading that we look at his character and judge his claim to godhood based on that, rather than on verifiable outside evidence." Me: Pomp, if you want to think that Jesus was an idiot, that's okay with me. At least you aren't trying to circumvent the trilemma. [ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Bilboe ]</p> |
04-03-2002, 06:48 PM | #65 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 54
|
Hans: "For the sake of argument assume Jesus is an omnipotent god. Not the Christian God as defined by the Bible but "a god" that we know nothing about. Given his omnipotent nature under this assumption by what possible means would we have to deduce intent and motive."
Me: If we assume that Jesus is God, then we could deduce his intent and motives by what he tells us about them. Hans:"Perhaps, unknown to us, all of his acts and teachings are to fulfill an alterier motive. I mean, what is it really for an omnipotent being to walk on water and rise from the dead but pure simplicity. What is it for an omnipotent being to portray what to us is perfection in character but pure simplicity as well. Under this scenario you would have exactly the same results; the Christian Bible exactly as it is written." Me: Yeah...what's your point? Hans: "Or assume it was a devious little fairy who's magical powers were limited to only appearing as a man and the acts Jesus made. The result would be the same; the Christian Bible as it is written." Me: Yes, I guess we could expand the tri-lemma to include devious little fairies. If you prefer that alternative, fine. I'll take the God alternative. Hans: "Now you or I certainly can not demonstrate that the scenarios I present above are true anymore than you or I could demonstrate that Jesus' claims about God as he made them are true. You see, I have addressed the tri-lemma argument. I just looked a little further than the argument wants you or I to look." Me: No, I cannot demonstrate that the scenarios are true. But my point is that you would be forced into choosing one of those scenarios, and could not think of Jesus as a mere human being. Hans: "That is why I said of the tri-lemma argument: "ruling out limited alternatives." Once the door is opened to the supernatural, possibilities are limited only by our imagination because we have not a reality to compare them to." Me: True. So let's rewrite the tri-lemma: either lunatic, liar, or supernatural being of some kind. Now choose. Hans' counter tri-lemma: "a) Jesus' claims are accurate. b) Jesus' claims are inaccurate. c) The Christian Bible is not as authentic as many would like to believe. What are we to do given none of the above can be determined with any certianty. Should we adopt what is most likely? Or should we perhaps take the position that we have been provided with nothing we can confirm and therefore nothing we can believe? Or is it something else that we should do?" Me: It sounds like you want to choose the fourth alternative, expanding our tri-lemma to a quad-lemma: either liar, lunatic, supernatural being, or Jesus never claimed to be God. I consider that to be an acceptable alternative. But then you can now see why the question of historical reliability of the New Testament documents becomes relevant. |
04-04-2002, 08:11 AM | #66 |
New Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Inside spacious building on a few lush acres of land...
Posts: 1
|
**Here is another possible option,however oversimplistic is may sound--which is the "Yea,Nay argument".
Which is simply the common notion that that the Bible is a "what you see is what you get" type of deal. It is indeed all there in front of you,with no hidden revelations,or at least none needed for one to initially believe it. You either are "yea" or "nay" as far as how much of it,if any you feel is valid. And since most have already decided on this, there is really no need to rack your brain in trying to figure out all the "whys" and "hows" to it. This passage in 2nd-Peter-1:16-18,provides a good glimpse into the believers psyche and is one of the original sources of "evidence" used by the first century Christians--- "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables,when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,but were eyewitnesses of His majesty." "And this voice which came from heaven we heard,when we were with Him in the holy mount." Here,the Apostle Peter is recalling that event where Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus on what is called the "Mount of transfiguration". And where Peter also audibly heard the voice of God...or so he says. Now you either choose to call Peter a liar,or believe him. There doesn't need to be some long process of elimination and/or deliberation into one's own personal views of "evidences" and "arguments" and how to properly define this or that. You read it,and then you choose what to believe,or so it was/is with me,and most believers. I suppose though some need to more precisely clarify why they so adamantly reject all scripture?? I do however commend those who shun the "in your face" approach to debunking the Bible. But it is actually better to remain an unbeliever with at least a hope of converting,than to convert and then later fall away as this states-- "For if they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of Jesus Christ,they are again entangled therein,and overcome,the latter end is worse than the beginning. "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness,than after they have known it,to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them." [2nd Peter-2:20-21] So in fact,there are actually some unbelievers who are better off than others,based on their past. And God is even harder on those believers who continue to sin,than those who don't yet know the truth. "For the time is come that judgement must begin at the House of God;and if it first begin at us,what shall be the end of them that obey not the gospel of God. "And if the righteous scarcely be saved,where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" [1st Peter-4:17-18] *Just some more things to consider* |
04-04-2002, 09:07 AM | #67 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 247
|
Bilboe
Quote:
Thus my list of possibilities: (simplified) a) Jesus' claims are accurate. b) Jesus' claims are inaccurate. c) Jesus' claims never existed. Even if we assume the Christian Bible contains authentic and accurate testimonials we are still left to guess between A and B. |
|
04-04-2002, 06:40 PM | #68 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 54
|
Hans,
Thinking it over, I'd like to qualify my response from yesterday. I think we can identify a person's character, whether they're natural or supernatural. Even if we admitted Jesus were supernatural, the question remains, was he a good supernatural being, who should be believed, or an evil supernatural being, who shouldn't be believed. And for me, based on what I can deduce about his character from the records, I would say it is far more likely that Jesus was a good supernatural being than a bad one. You may think we wouldn't be able to come to such a conclusion, but I disagree. Whoever Jesus was, he was someone who turned down the offer of power, either from the devil or from people. He championed the causes of the outcast and downtrodden, warning those in power and the rich that there would be a day of reckoning. He didn't consider himself too important to take time for children. He noticed humble things that others ignored, like the poor woman putting her last penny into the offering box at the temple. Assuming the miracle stories are true, he healed the sick, cast out evil demons, raised the dead, and fed the hungry. He treated women with equal dignity and respect. He treated tax collectors and prostitutes as people, not sinners to be shunned. He never returned evil for evil, but forgave his murderers even as he was dying a horrible death. If you think this tells us nothing about his character, I have to disagree. |
04-04-2002, 11:13 PM | #69 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 2,406
|
Quote:
The point of my argument is not so much that we cannot exclude naturalistic explanations for an observation X, although this is in any case a very difficult task. But even if someone succeeds at this task, he still cannot claim that X is evidence for a particular supernatural explanation (Example: actual water-to-wine miracle vs. photon miracle which creates only the visual appearance of water-to-wine), For naturalistic explanations, we can quite often say that explanation E1 is better/more reasonable/more probable etc. than E2, because we have knowledge and experience about naturalistic phenomena and mechanisms. But we completely lack a corresponding basis for the supernatural realm. Regards, HRG. |
|
04-05-2002, 11:56 AM | #70 | ||||
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 247
|
Bilboe
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|