Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What would it take for the atheist to believe in God?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post



    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows shows there were witnesses to Harry's "death and resurrection". And?
    A fictional character in a fictional world undergoes a fictional resurrection witnessed by fictional characters is purely imaginary, therefore a real character in the real world undergoing a resurrection - the resurrection being attested by real people is purely imaginary.

    The logic is ineffable.

    To continue with the same "reasoning"

    Also in the fictional world of Harry Potter, he travelled by fictional train (head ended by a fictional steam locomotive), lived in a fictional house, attended a fictional boarding school, which had a fictional dining hall and fictional dormitories, therefore trains, houses, boarding schools etc are purely imaginary.
    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

      The idea that the dominant worldview held that supernatural activities occurred makes it "self-evident" that such activities really do NOT occur is an interesting approach to logic.
      Not at all. Certain ancient peoples had very little understanding of the physical world. It was the Greeks that turned the natural world from a "thou" into an "it".

      And as previously stated the ancient world teemed with superstitions and the belief in malign and benign supernatural entities. Not all individuals believed all this of course in the first century CE [especially among the Greeks and the wider Hellenised world] but certainly among the ancient Semites, and in particular the Jews, demons were believed to be everywhere.

      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

      I believe most if not all of the cases he cites are sufficiently extraordinary and difficult to explain by naturalistic causes to qualify as divine miracles. I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of recounting specific cases. Anyone who is interested can buy the book or look up some of the videos he's done online.
      I shall have a look at some of these videos - thank you.


      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

      There is no "bibliography" per se, nor is there any sort of index. There are substantial notes, but they are end-notes rather than footnotes. I find all of these facts to be annoyances, albeit minor ones.
      I find it odd that you consider facts to be an "annoyance".

      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
      They are relatively common in his non-academic works, unfortunately.
      Ah so this is not affecting to be an academic work?

      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
      I believe there are a *few* academic works of the kind you request embedded in the notes, but I'm not going to try to track them down. Based on the remarks in some of the endorsements in his prior two-volume academic work, to a large extent he is plowing new ground, and so it would not be surprising if supporting scholarly works are still rather rare. (Many of those endorsers are themselves respected scholars.)
      Yes I've looked through that two volume work and read some of the reviews pertaining to it.


      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
      On p. 139, Keener cites Quadratus as noting that some of the people Jesus raised from the dead were still alive in his time; the end-note suggests a date ca. AD 70-130.
      Another early Christian apologist.

      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

      Yes, he's about two months younger than I. He converted while in high school, so probably mid to late teens in age, mid to late '70s on the calendar, and as I understand it, began having supernatural experiences within months.
      You will forgive me but all this sounds far more likely to have some psychological basis.

      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

      I think his pursuit of this topic has the potential to cause some academic ripples.
      "ripples"? I would suspect ridicule among many would be more appropriate.

      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
      As I understand it, once upon a time it was taken as a given that "the supernatural" basically ended about 1900 years ago. I think Gordon Fee took some heat back in the day because he was a committed practicing Pentecostal, but also a scholar who managed to get recognition beyond Pentecostalism. In recent decades, "cessationism" has lost some traction, at least in a theoretical sense. Many scholars believe in at least the possibility that the charismata are still active, mainly because Scripture does not preclude it. But in practice, most would be even less faith-filled and expectant than the disciples hearing Rhoda's report in Acts 12 (not that I would be a lot better!). If Keener continues to pursue and publish such research, and especially if other scholars follow suit, it could push the academic community as a whole to move one way or the other.
      I think we can safely say that superstition and credulity still abound among large swathes of the western populations. Mystics, mediums, faith healers, and other charlatans [knowing or unknowing] still ply their [often highly lucrative] trades.

      And among individuals there are those who claim to have had supernatural experiences and/or alien abductions..

      While I would never openly mock someone who claims to have had such an experience, the underlying questions is "Did they actually see and experience what they think they saw and experienced?"
      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

        A fictional character in a fictional world undergoes a fictional resurrection witnessed by fictional characters is purely imaginary, therefore a real character in the real world undergoing a resurrection - the resurrection being attested by real people is purely imaginary.

        The logic is ineffable.

        To continue with the same "reasoning"

        Also in the fictional world of Harry Potter, he travelled by fictional train (head ended by a fictional steam locomotive), lived in a fictional house, attended a fictional boarding school, which had a fictional dining hall and fictional dormitories, therefore trains, houses, boarding schools etc are purely imaginary.
        On the contrary many fictitious individuals are placed in real world settings. Just think of Hugo's Les Miserables, or Lindsey Davis' first century "detective" Marcus Didius Falco, or the saucy goings-on of Ann Golon's Angélique at the court of Le Roi Soleil..

        The point concerning narrative fiction is that these gospels contain such elements. You and others seem to consider these texts as we now have them to be verbatim and accurate accounts of events that they purport to recount;. They are no such thing. Yes there are real places and real people in those narratives but then so there are in Tolstoy's War and Peace.
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • While I would never openly mock someone who claims to have had such an experience
          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

            I find it odd that you consider facts to be an "annoyance".
            I find footnotes much more convenient than end-notes. I find indices useful. It annoys me, albeit mildly, when these preferences are not met.

            Ah so this is not affecting to be an academic work?
            No. It is written for a different audience than the earlier two-volume work. One might *loosely* analogize it to Fee's Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God compared to God's Empowering Presence.


            Yes I've looked through that two volume work and read some of the reviews pertaining to it.


            Another early Christian apologist.

            You will forgive me but all this sounds far more likely to have some psychological basis.



            "ripples"? I would suspect ridicule among many would be more appropriate.
            From some. As I said -- or perhaps the intent underlying what I said -- I suspect his studies will uncover and bring to the surface already existing divisions in the academic community.
            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

            Beige Nationalist.

            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

              I find footnotes much more convenient than end-notes. I find indices useful. It annoys me, albeit mildly, when these preferences are not met.
              Oh I understand now.



              Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
              No. It is written for a different audience than the earlier two-volume work. One might *loosely* analogize it to Fee's Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God compared to God's Empowering Presence.








              From some. As I said -- or perhaps the intent underlying what I said -- I suspect his studies will uncover and bring to the surface already existing divisions in the academic community.
              I shall have to seek out a copy. Having just watched Miracles (Part 1) [Talbot Chapel] on Youtube it is clear that Keener has some issues with various individuals engaged in so-called Higher Criticism. I wonder why?



              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                I find footnotes much more convenient than end-notes. I find indices useful. It annoys me, albeit mildly, when these preferences are not met.
                Do you prefer Chicago or APA style? Used to be that I preferred Chicago, but with familiarity, I have found APA to be surprisingly the less intrusive.
                sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post


                  From some. As I said -- or perhaps the intent underlying what I said -- I suspect his studies will uncover and bring to the surface already existing divisions in the academic community.
                  Quite possible. Challenges to the details of the Trinity doctrine simmered under the surface for quite some time before Kitamori and others pointed out that certain inconsistencies existed, but their work was largely unnoticed. When Moltmann expanded on their work, he had enough gravitas to bring the subject into the mainstream. A few hundred years earlier, blood would have been spilt.
                  sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kate22 View Post

                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • To the non-believer, yes, the lack of objective evidence is the elephant in the room, but also the subjective contradictory diversity of beliefs in God or God(s) mostly reflecting the diversity of the cultures over the history of humanity, leads to the question; Which God or God(s) is the real God or God(s) are truely real.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        To the non-believer, yes, the lack of objective evidence is the elephant in the room, but also the subjective contradictory diversity of beliefs in God or God(s) mostly reflecting the diversity of the cultures over the history of humanity, leads to the question; Which God or God(s) is the real God or God(s) are truely real.
                        On this matter of the lack of/search for objective evidence, since this is a rather important issue, here are a few ideas as to why it is not given.

                        ISTM that the quest for that kind of evidence, is a mistake in method. It is methodologically inappropriate. Friendship with another person, is shown by living it, and practicing it. Not by trying to calculate its atomic weight, its specifc gravity, its angular momentum, or its half-life. Some things can be assessed in those ways, and not in others - but friendship is not testable in those ways. It can't be treated as though it were amenable to measurement by the methods proper to the natural sciences. It can be experienced, and is known by being experienced - but it is not amenable to testing by the methods proper to the sciences, to demonstration by reason, nor by mathematical demonstration.

                        The experience of being a friend of someone cannot be known in the abstract - ideas about friendship, and analyses of it, are not the thing itself. The mutual love of a married couple is friendship; Cicero's essay "On Friendship" is not friendship. but a book about friendship. Loving the book, and even admiring its author, are also not friendship. Only friendship can be friendship. The definition & analysis of it, is not it.

                        In the sciences, entities are (so to speak) ecumenically verifiable. That is, anyone can verify that a thing is a meteorite, regardless of the verifier's ethnicity, sex, age, academic record, moral character, and other personal details. The scientific method is the same for everyone. All that is needed in order to recognise a thing to be a meteorite, is some intelligence, and the possession of some info. So within wide limits, anyone can know a meteorite to be the meteorite that it is.

                        Knowledge of God, by contrast, requires one to be a certain kind of person, for one can have eyes to "see" God, only if one has begun to become a certain kind of person. Intelligence and wisdom, though very desirable & valuable, are not enough.

                        One has to "do" friendship, & be in it, in order to know what a friendship, as a relation between persons, is. "Head-knowledge" about it, isolated from it, is too impersonal, too objective, too static, too lifeless, to communicate the dimensions of the experience itself. Friendship is a dialogue of heart with heart, a dynamic communion of souls; it cannot be reduced to being objective, because it is a meeting of acting subjects. Its subjectivity and dynamic character make it unscientific.

                        The point of all that talk is, that the Christian experience of God is somewhat like human friendship. It is subjective, dynamic, alive, inter-personal, transcendent, not reducible to human calculation, dialogical, heart-to-heart. Not a quantitative, measurable, material, ecumenically verifiable object in the universe. There are differences between "Friendship" with God & human friendship, but there are also similarities; so the comparison is limited, but not wholly valueless.

                        That is why C. S. Lewis' Aslan, the equivalent of Christ in Narnia, "is not a tame lion". He could not be shown to unbelievers, as though he were a lapdog subject to human whims & manipulation. And neither can the Christ in Whom Christians believe and hope. That is why appeals to Christians (on YouTube, say) to "show me your God" cannot be complied with - the God in Whom we trust, is not our plaything, but (so we believe) the Creator of our being, our existence, and our lives. We are (in some sense) from this God, as being His handiwork - He is not from us, nor in any way subject to us.

                        That does not reply to all that you asked, but I hope it helps.
                        Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 11-23-2021, 09:29 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                          On this matter of the lack of/search for objective evidence, since this is a rather important issue, here are a few ideas as to why it is not given.

                          ISTM that the quest for that kind of evidence, is a mistake in method. It is methodologically inappropriate. Friendship with another person, is shown by living it, and practicing it. Not by trying to calculate its atomic weight, its specifc gravity, its angular momentum, or its half-life. Some things can be assessed in those ways, and not in others - but friendship is not testable in those ways. It can't be treated as though it were amenable to measurement by the methods proper to the natural sciences. It can be experienced, and is known by being experienced - but it is not amenable to testing by the methods proper to the sciences, to demonstration by reason, nor by mathematical demonstration.

                          The experience of being a friend of someone cannot be known in the abstract - ideas about friendship, and analyses of it, are not the thing itself. The mutual love of a married couple is friendship; Cicero's essay "On Friendship" is not friendship. but a book about friendship. Loving the book, and even admiring its author, are also not friendship. Only friendship can be friendship. The definition & analysis of it, is not it.

                          In the sciences, entities are (so to speak) ecumenically verifiable. That is, anyone can verify that a thing is a meteorite, regardless of the verifier's ethnicity, sex, age, academic record, moral character, and other personal details. The scientific method is the same for everyone. All that is needed in order to recognise a thing to be a meteorite, is some intelligence, and the possession of some info. So within wide limits, anyone can know a meteorite to be the meteorite that it is.

                          Knowledge of God, by contrast, requires one to be a certain kind of person, for one can have eyes to "see" God, only if one has begun to become a certain kind of person. Intelligence and wisdom, though very desirable & valuable, are not enough.

                          One has to "do" friendship, & be in it, in order to know what a friendship, as a relation between persons, is. "Head-knowledge" about it, isolated from it, is too impersonal, too objective, too static, too lifeless, to communicate the dimensions of the experience itself. Friendship is a dialogue of heart with heart, a dynamic communion of souls; it cannot be reduced to being objective, because it is a meeting of acting subjects. Its subjectivity and dynamic character make it unscientific.

                          The point of all that talk is, that the Christian experience of God is somewhat like human friendship. It is subjective, dynamic, alive, inter-personal, transcendent, not reducible to human calculation, dialogical, heart-to-heart. Not a quantitative, measurable, material, ecumenically verifiable object in the universe. There are differences between "Friendship" with God & human friendship, but there are also similarities; so the comparison is limited, but not wholly valueless.

                          That is why C. S. Lewis' Aslan, the equivalent of Christ in Narnia, "is not a tame lion". He could not be shown to unbelievers, as though he were a lapdog subject to human whims & manipulation. And neither can the Christ in Whom Christians believe and hope. That is why appeals to Christians (on YouTube, say) to "show me your God" cannot be complied with - the God in Whom we trust, is not our plaything, but (so we believe) the Creator of our being, our existence, and our lives. We are (in some sense) from this God, as being His handiwork - He is not from us, nor in any way subject to us.

                          That does not reply to all that you asked, but I hope it helps.
                          This is a 'subjective' theistic view of a believer from a narrow Christian perspective,which is part of the problem it does not address the reasons Philosophical Naturalists would reject the belief in God I believe in God, but the above is not meaningful to me. In part, because it does not consider a universal perspective of what would be God if the 'Source' of what diverse conflicting believers who consider God of God(s) exist. I was presenting the view of how the atheist and other Philosophical Materialists, who would not consider the above an adequate argument either, but from a materialist perspective. .
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-23-2021, 10:42 PM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                            That is why C. S. Lewis' Aslan, the equivalent of Christ in Narnia, "is not a tame lion". He could not be shown to unbelievers, as though he were a lapdog subject to human whims & manipulation. And neither can the Christ in Whom Christians believe and hope. That is why appeals to Christians (on YouTube, say) to "show me your God" cannot be complied with - the God in Whom we trust, is not our plaything, but (so we believe) the Creator of our being, our existence, and our lives. We are (in some sense) from this God, as being His handiwork - He is not from us, nor in any way subject to us.


                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                              Not to their face. However, some of these people who claim to have had these experiences are often rather odd.
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                                Not to their face. However, some of these people who claim to have had these experiences are often rather odd.
                                This is about me, isn't it?
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 11-27-2021, 06:29 AM
                                31 responses
                                204 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 11-01-2021, 08:51 PM
                                68 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Ronson, 10-31-2021, 10:01 AM
                                7 responses
                                61 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by eider, 10-24-2021, 01:23 AM
                                356 responses
                                1,874 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post DesertBerean  
                                Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 07:32 PM
                                460 responses
                                2,861 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X