tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post2678886296645657862..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: 16 Atheists / Agnostics and Me: Sounds Like a Good Ratio! Further Adventures at an Atheist "Bible Study" GroupDave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-51270285703018156232010-12-08T12:22:00.537-05:002010-12-08T12:22:00.537-05:00Excellent comments as always, Stan.
I got my copi...Excellent comments as always, Stan.<br /><br />I got my copies of <i>What Catholics Really Believe</i> today. They look fabulous! I love the different fonts and all the illustrations. Very sharp!Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-47894270705832854872010-12-08T08:49:44.838-05:002010-12-08T08:49:44.838-05:00That last "and" was to be a "can&qu...That last "and" was to be a "can". (See what mistakes and knowledge can impart?) Something does not make sense (like my last sentence) until new data is provided (it's a "can") and suddenly the mystery makes sense. All human history is filled with such examples, especially in the history of science. What mankind thought was witchcraft of the 18th century is today "modern medicine" or "medical miracles." <br /><br />d. Thus, the atheist, by his claim of of omniscience (there IS no God) errors in believing he knows all there is to know. And that his life demands to know something before he acts on it... as if his "knowledge" when he "knows" is perfect and not capable of making a typo. <br /><br />e. This is the role of Christian Faith, without which few of the scientific discoveries would have been possible. Perhaps explaining such a supposition is for another time, but here's the crux of how Faith is irrevocably tied to scientific discovery -- Faith informs us that the natural world has a mystical purpose, and thus it is ordered and structured. That supposition allows science to use syllogisms to construct hypotheses, and then use logic to test them. Without Faith there is no purpose of the universe, and thus no order that benefits the well being of mankind. <br /><br />x. But the "x" factor I am always reminded of is this: If human kind are just animals and only a notch above rocks, then why do humans and only humans wear clothes?Stan Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12084603289444240062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-28794683383941298282010-12-08T08:40:37.743-05:002010-12-08T08:40:37.743-05:00b. My thinking about miracles was informed by Worl...b. My thinking about miracles was informed by Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky where he argues that the Plagues of Egypt (Moses) were the natural result of Earth's collision with the tail of a comet. Another example is the fictional (but logical) account of the protagonist in "A Yankee in King Arthur's Court" predicting a solar eclipse. Such events seem like miracles of an angry god until we understand the naturalness of it. <br /><br />c. This throws a monkey wrench into the atheist's arguments about needing "legitimate" evidence to "unanswered questions". The atheist is demanding omniscience of the universe of knowledge. Something he/she will never have (unless they are "lucky" enough to get to heaven). Their illogical demand to be "god-like" in terms of knowledge (either now or at sometime in the future) cuts them off from the revelations that only faith and inform them about. More...Stan Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12084603289444240062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-49651923553999531732010-12-08T08:32:04.477-05:002010-12-08T08:32:04.477-05:00Dave. One of your more interesting posts. Makes me...Dave. One of your more interesting posts. Makes me wonder if a film documentary might be of value. Might make an interesting set of programs for my Nineveh's Crossing Presents television series. But alas, time, time, time. All these great ideas and no time...or at times money.<br /><br />A couple of "logical" comments however:<br /><br />a. As a physicist (in part) and a Christian (hopefully, not in part) I have never believed that miracles need to break a natural law. Miracles seem more like paradoxes to me. A paradox is a contradiction without all the data. That is, a contradiction, when all the data is collected, still does not make logical sense. But a paradox only appears as a contradiction until we have all the data. Thus miracles are more likely paradoxes. We don't understand the physical world that much, so miracles look like contradictions. More...Stan Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12084603289444240062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-39760896046126631232010-12-06T15:21:22.020-05:002010-12-06T15:21:22.020-05:00Protestant apologist Cory Tucholski has written a ...Protestant apologist Cory Tucholski has written a very nice companion-piece / observation:<br /><br />"Dave Armstrong vs. the Atheists"<br /><br />http://josiahconcept.org/2010/12/04/dave-armstrong-vs-the-atheists/Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-49068720988298494992010-11-29T23:22:17.421-05:002010-11-29T23:22:17.421-05:00Thanks Paul. I appreciate it.
But Dave? I thought...Thanks Paul. I appreciate it.<br /><br /><i>But Dave? I thought being "irrational" was half the fun! Good on you!</i><br /><br />It must be for the atheists, since they indulge in a great deal of it! :-)Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-22284733851468631712010-11-29T18:32:08.410-05:002010-11-29T18:32:08.410-05:00But Dave? I thought being "irrational" w...But Dave? I thought being "irrational" was half the fun! Good on you!Luminaria2112https://www.blogger.com/profile/05321732909857327110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-49667533773041154612010-11-29T17:46:40.368-05:002010-11-29T17:46:40.368-05:00Two comments.
* You have to love this statement, ...Two comments.<br /><br />* You have to love this statement, "As far as apologists go I kind of like Roman Catholics. Dave Armstrong may be extremely irrational. But he's always been fairly charitable." Good you can keep your sense of humor.<br /><br />* It's important to address atheism. IMO, more people need to do it. Dawkins and Hitchens have gotten a lot of press play even though they have nothing new to say. Kudos for your efforts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-7039217497223162102010-11-28T00:03:40.255-05:002010-11-28T00:03:40.255-05:00[cont.]
But many apologists—especially those usin...[cont.]<br /><br /><i>But many apologists—especially those using the Habermas method—appear to claim the evidence is sufficient to even convince a naturalist.</i> <br /><br />I am sort of in the middle. I think the evidence is sufficient, but the hostile premises of the atheist / agnostic are so contrary to it that he or she cannot be convinced, on that basis. It also takes faith to believe, and that faith is given only by God's grace (I'm sure you're familiar with that aspect of Christian theology). If that grace is rejected, then the person won't believe in a thing like the resurrection because the faith required is not there. It does take faith. If Habermas is discounting that, then I have a problem with his analysis. But I don't think he would deny what I am saying here.<br /><br /><i>In those situations I try to explain why the evidence is not enough. Why we have legitimate (often un-addressed) concerns regarding the evidence claimed.</i><br /><br />Yeah, that's fine. I just think that the premises involved are crucial, and the role they play are profound and compelling according to your own worldview. And they need to be discussed as well. I always go to the premises because I am a socratic in methodology and that's what socratics do.<br /><br /><i>*shrug* If you are saying it is useless to even discuss the assertions surrounding the Resurrection unless the person is first a theist—</i><br /><br />I would never say that. That is more the position of presuppositionalist apologetics, which is mostly the reformed / Calvinists and some Baptists. That has never been my point of view at any time.<br /><br /><i>I would think this provides support to the reasoning that the evidence is insufficient to prove a miracle happened.</i><br /><br />I assert both: the evidence is sufficient, but people's opinions are formed from their presuppositions and natural biases, based on what they read and who they hang around with.<br /><br />I think almost exactly the same about God. I believe that knowledge of Him is innate in human beings and evident from observing nature (Romans 1). But for many reasons, this can be unlearned (again, due to influences that a person chooses, and environments), and so there is such a thing as an atheist or an agnostic.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-67201328958138482052010-11-28T00:02:47.710-05:002010-11-28T00:02:47.710-05:00Hi DagoodS,
Thanks for droppin' by!
It was n...Hi DagoodS,<br /><br />Thanks for droppin' by!<br /><br /><i>It was nice to finally meet you, Dave Armstrong. A few points…in my defense.<br /><br />I don’t try to “poke holes in the Bible.” I attempt to poke holes in certain claims about particular Bibles. For example, you touched on contradictions. As you and I agree there are contradictions in the Bible,</i> <br /><br />I think there are very few, and what few there are are due to manuscript discrepancies, and what minor ones can be found (about numbers or whatever) do not affect any Christian doctrine.<br /><br /><i>this wouldn’t pertain to you, but to others who claim inerrancy, I do question the viability regarding the claim. The same way you would.</i><br /><br />No one denies that it takes faith to believe that the Bible is inspired. <br /><br />What I have shown in past dialogues with you, I think, is that many of your alleged contradictions simply aren't that in the first place, by the rules of logic that atheist and theist agree upon. In other words, it is a logical discussion, not a theological one, when the claim is that contradiction is present.<br /><br /><i>As to naturalistic presupposition…I agree that is a difficulty for the apologist in discussing the Resurrection. Alas, it is part of human make-up. We all have biases. As a naturalist, I am going to look for a natural explanation. As a theist, I could understand a theist looking for a supernatural explanation in certain events.</i><br /><br />No quibble with that statement!<br /><br /><i>If the apologist agrees the evidence for the Resurrection is not persuasive enough to convince a naturalist a miracle occurred, I am perfectly fine with that.</i> <br /><br />It is scarcely possible, like I said in the post, to convince an atheist / agnostic of the Resurrection, since all miracles are denied from the outset. So the discussion has to first be, whether miracles are possible and whether they have in fact, occurred. <br /><br />But then that discussion itself necessarily goes back to theistic arguments about God, since God is necessary to perform the miracle in the first place; otherwise, the laws of science and nature determine what happens. <br /><br />Therefore one has to engage in two HUGE discussions before we even get to a sensible, constructive discussion about Jesus' Resurrection.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-9820908795739396812010-11-27T23:47:30.897-05:002010-11-27T23:47:30.897-05:00Thanks much, I.M. Yeah, I agree; atheists will alw...Thanks much, I.M. Yeah, I agree; atheists will always find something to irrationally agree with. When one adopts radically false premises, that is how it goes.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-75219606938200317942010-11-27T22:04:38.797-05:002010-11-27T22:04:38.797-05:00ps, if there were no apparent "contradictions...ps, if there were no apparent "contradictions" in the Bible, then atheists still wouldn't be happy. They would point to the fact that the whole Bible must have been written or edited by one person, which is why all the accounts match up exactly. <br /><br />You just can't win with them.I.M Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02221772173209860714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-21867164676108556072010-11-27T22:02:07.068-05:002010-11-27T22:02:07.068-05:00You're doing good work there Dave. I definitel...You're doing good work there Dave. I definitely wouldn't have the patience.I.M Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02221772173209860714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-75360952370497148032010-11-26T13:04:51.771-05:002010-11-26T13:04:51.771-05:00It was nice to finally meet you, Dave Armstrong. ...It was nice to finally meet you, Dave Armstrong. A few points…in my defense.<br /><br />I don’t try to “poke holes in the Bible.” I attempt to poke holes in certain claims about particular Bibles. For example, you touched on contradictions. As you and I agree there are contradictions in the Bible, this wouldn’t pertain to you, but to others who claim inerrancy, I do question the viability regarding the claim. The same way you would.<br /><br />As to naturalistic presupposition…I agree that is a difficulty for the apologist in discussing the Resurrection. Alas, it is part of human make-up. We all have biases. As a naturalist, I am going to look for a natural explanation. As a theist, I could understand a theist looking for a supernatural explanation in certain events. <br /><br />If the apologist agrees the evidence for the Resurrection is not persuasive enough to convince a naturalist a miracle occurred, I am perfectly fine with that. But many apologists—especially those using the Habermas method—appear to claim the evidence is sufficient to even convince a naturalist. In those situations I try to explain why the evidence is not enough. Why we have legitimate (often un-addressed) concerns regarding the evidence claimed.<br /><br />*shrug* If you are saying it is useless to even discuss the assertions surrounding the Resurrection unless the person is first a theist—I would think this provides support to the reasoning that the evidence is insufficient to prove a miracle happened.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-12333227408668322102010-11-26T12:10:48.590-05:002010-11-26T12:10:48.590-05:00Thanks much. I hope you and all my readers had a b...Thanks much. I hope you and all my readers had a blessed holiday yesterday.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-43702547260566462332010-11-26T11:54:58.581-05:002010-11-26T11:54:58.581-05:00Great post Dave!Great post Dave!Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.com