John ~ the other possibility is I’m being truthful and it bothers you because, well …
No reason you can’t be truthful and insulting at the same time. You’re being truthful in expressing your insulting opinion. If that’s actually your opinion you should think about it and consider modifying your beliefs. Is it possible that a non-believer might be both honest and open, but still reject the evidence because it just isn’t all that good? Is it possible that your confidence should more precisely be described as arrogance? I merely ask you to consider the possibility.
3 Likes
John ~ I stand by my original statement. We tend to assess the strength of the evidence according to how open we are to it. And my point is that God does not use epistemic coercion. Freedom is a necessary condition for God to reveal the heart.
That’s unfortunate. But “epistemic coercion” is a fine bit of excuse for non-evidence, as is “freedom”.
3 Likes
Yeah, I have to say, the one really nasty thing about evolutionary theory, for example, is the way that it’s so compellingly well demonstrated that I wind up feeling epistemically coerced. Facts are real jerks sometimes.
4 Likes
That’s three possibilities, and you’ve yet to mention any possibility that you might be wrong.
4 Likes
John ~ Your use of the phrase “non-evidence” is an excuse for dismissing what others recognize as strong evidences, but which are for you inconvenient truths. Enough on that.
I am an open and honest enquirer, and I have not found this evidence.
1 Like
Have you considered the sources I referenced above?
Roy ~ I consider that possibility every day.
And repenting of my erroneous thoughts when I find them. Do you?
This is a really bad excuse religious people come up with when they don’t have this supposed persuasive evidence.
You say there is evidence that should convince an open and honest enquirer, but then when persuasion fails to occur, you have an ad-hoc rationalization for why this is: Either the enquirer isn’t open and honest, or God has made the evidence deliberately ambiguous to give people the freedom not to believe.
But how is this anything more than a bad excuse?
That makes zero logical sense. Either the case for something’s existence is persuasive or it is not. Freedom isn’t somehow curtailed if the evidence is persuasive. You believe God exists, do you feel like your freedom has been taken away from you? Do you feel constricted to continue believing? Were you forced to begin against your will?
1 Like
Reminds me of charlatans like Uri Geller whose paranormal PSI power wouldn’t work if there was an unbeliever in the room. 
3 Likes
You wrote three names, not exactly “sources”. I also have to wonder why persuasive evidence for God has to come in the form of three contemporary apologists’s output. What a truly bizarre notion. I am familiar with Craig of course, and I’ve found nothing he says or writes convincing.
There’s a divine being that created everything and wants you to know it exists, and it has relegated the job of showing the truth of this proposition to three contemporary apologists. What?
But this is where you have a fits-all excuse: I must be closed off and/or dishonest, and/or God has designed his evidence with my “freedom” not to believe in mind. Saying that is like saying that I fail to divine water sources when you look because of the presence of the “negative energies” of skeptics. It’s the exact same kind of hucksterism.
1 Like
LOL
Exactly!
Do you realize that you have once again accused me of lying? I see this a lot: “Atheists really believe in God; they’re just in rebellion”, and so on. I think you have come here to testify rather than to engage in discussion.
Still, what are these “strong evidences” you’re thinking of?
1 Like
My study of human cognition has helped me understand that what counts as evidence for one observer may not be evidence to another observer.
In this particular case, I am more likely to agree with @John_Harshman as to what I consider to be evidence. However, I do recognize that what you take to be evidence may well be different.
2 Likes
@Rumraket ~ All 3 are fully credentialed scholars in the relevant fields. They are not merely apologists. If you are not familiar with their work, or at least the concepts they discuss, then you are not ready for the discussion, and have some work to do to familiarize yourself with the evidence.
The real issue is that evidence is rarely conclusive. And we have filters which stop evidence that threatens our basic worldview commitments. So having the evidence does not guarantee that we recognize it, or rationally weigh its strength. Thus openness and honesty are preconditions, but not themselves sufficient conditions for guiding us to true belief. We still need processes of familiarization with evidence and assessment epistemic virtues. We can fail at every point.
If God exists, and his plan is to test your souls, then don’t suppose that you can stipulate what kind of evidence and what amount he is somehow obliged to provide. Collect what is there and make your call. The burden is yours because you will live with the outcome.
All of you can call me names, and make ad hominem comments, but that does not defeat the point of my argument.
1 Like
It’s the Courtier’s Reply!
Who has called you names? So far you have managed to accuse several people of dishonesty and willful blindness; that’s all I have noticed.
If, twice. What do you mean “his plan is to test your souls”? What makes you think there is such a plan? And how would failing to leave evidence of his existence constitute such a test?
So far you haven’t managed to present an argument, just a handwave in the direction of a few names. What is your argument? You also haven’t presented a point for the argument you haven’t made.
So what are the “strong evidences” you’re thinking of?
1 Like
The difficulty, of course, is that the book was closed on the evidence a long while ago, and modern commentators can work it every which way, but a thousand volumes of theological commentary don’t move the evidence one bit.
To prove the existence of paranormal entities, one needs evidence competent to the task. Here the problem is not just the quality of the evidence – yes, it’s not very convincing, but what if it were? It’s still in entirely the wrong domain to demonstrate the reality of paranormal beings. History can’t do it, no matter how you shake it; only empirical inquiry can demonstrate the existence of forces that operate in the world.
1 Like
I know. I am not saying they are stupid, nor uneducated, nor unworthy of serious consideration. I have heard the names before, and I have come across some of the supposed evidence and arguments they make too. But I shouldn’t have to go buy their books or read everything they ever wrote. First of all because the nature of the question being debated here shouldn’t have to come down to what Habermas, Craig, and Wright has to say on the subject. God should be able to reveal his existence in ways that doesn’t require PhD’s in philosophy, history, or any scientific field.
I should tell you though that I have heard probably most of the major arguments for belief advanced by numerous Christians apologists(and historians, and philosophers), among them Craig. I’d be happy to discuss any argument of his you’d like to. As for the rest of them, I think you should just tell me what the evidence and arguments are instead of namedropping. The “have you read the output of [insert apologist here]?” gambit quickly becomes both boring and exceedingly laborious.
Yeah unfortunately this isn’t the real issue, because if we allow ourselves to concoct this excuse every time we fail to persuade someone we’ve basically made it impossible for us to discover if our arguments are truly rationally persuasive. We could always just rationalize that the opposition has some sort of cognitive blockade going that prevents them from realizing they’re wrong.
Even to the extent it is true that we all have various social and cognitive biases affecting how we think about and perceive opposing views, I don’t think anything is really gained by bringing it up. I could sit here and go on at length about how Christians often times structure many aspects of their lives around their faith. That it gives them feelings of social and emotional comfort, a feeling of a sense of purpose to their life, a nice story to tell themselves about how they’re not truly going to die but will one day get to see long lost loved ones again, and so on. All of which could motivate a person to not be able to accept the simple and obvious reality, that there is no good evidence to justify belief in the extraordinary claims of their religion.
Suffice it to say here though, that I don’t think evidence has to be conclusive, to be persuasive. Nor does it have to be conclusive to be evidence. I would be fine with saying there could be some evidence for the existence of God, I just haven’t come across any.
Sure, and right back at you.
Big if’s you got there. Suppose God exists, but that is not his plan. Then what?
God is obliged to provide exactly as much evidence as it would take to persuade me, if God really wants me to know He exists. If he does not, I can’t be blamed for not being persuaded. I can’t just sit here and know stuff. Saying I am open and honestly seeking this evidence has some limitations. How much time out of my life am I supposed to spend searching for this evidence? At some point I’m also going to need to have a place to live, something to eat, and a life. There’s going to be some priorities here. Rather than potentially waste a lifetime delving into Christian apologetics searching for persuasive evidence of God’s existence, which ultimately might not exist, I’d rather try to live the one life I can be sure I have, and pursue genuine interests of mine.
God, being all-powerful, doesn’t have this problem of having to prioritize how to spent his time in search of unknowns that might or might not lead to anything, so the ball is in his court. My door is open to God. And God being God, would know what it would take to convince me.
I have taken on the burden of being willing to hear and consider whatever arguments and evidence you or anyone here will provide for the existence of God. But I’m not going to go buy or borrow books in search of something that might just be a rehash of the same arguments and non-evidence I’ve heard a thousand times before.
Sure we can do that, but we haven’t, and you have yet to give any arguments. So far all you’ve done is stated that the arguments are found in the output of three people, and then you’ve provided a nice fallback excuse for why it might fail to persuade. Maybe it succeeded at persuading you because you are biased?
2 Likes