This guy’s just too dumb to wear the name..

Say it ain’t so!

You are justifying the high ground of your blind obedence.

No I want some evidence that it actually is God’s word beyond your say so. The circularity of your argument negates it.

“But then the whole universe is evidence for the Logos! (The heavens declare the glory of God, etc).”

This is a conclusion – not evidence.

“You have devised hoops for God to jump through if He’s ever going to speak to you. (Not only this, but they are hoops that pretty much exclude supernaturalism!) Well as soon as you’ve brought out the hoops it’s abundantly clear you don’t want the *living* God to speak to you – only a god you could control. Probably not even that. But if that’s how things are – then you’re not a truth seeker.”

1. The hoops I ask job to jump through are simple, and in accordance with the rules you allege he set up. Reveal himslef to me in a way the verifies his existence – the same way that I use to verify the existence of other entities – through the use of my five sense. Materially. Measurably.

If god created me and the universe, he also created the tools I use to measure the existence of things. It would be extrodinarily cruel to not use those same tools to reveal himself to me, particularly if he intended to punish me for all eternity in return. Esentially, you argue that your god is a sadist.

Of course, he can’t do that. For the same reason that ghosts, saskwatch, unicorns, and fairies can’t reveal themselves to me.

2. This comment is extrodinarily arrogant. You have no idea how I begged god to talk to me. It’s because I am a truth seeker I lost faith and faced the truth of atheism.

or

“Let’s get back to logic shall we? I’m not saying it’s a proof – but it’s corroborating evidence that the material universe is not all there is…”

Circular arguments that start and end with the infallibility of a historically inaccurate book do not amount to corraborating evidence. The layers of hearsay inherent in that argument alone make in laughable. Moreover in order to be corraborating evidence it must be corroborating something. As near as I can tell, your book is all the evidence you have.

Mr. Challies has his own special brand of logic. Sadly, it is not Earth logic and it makes no sense.

When will people like you ever learn that there is no god but that our complete existence is decided by ten cows elected to their position by 42% of the cow population. They are the ones that actually caused the earthquake in Haiti and they are the ones that convinced Palin to actually get into politics. What I have been told by one of them is they figure within the lifetime of the readers here man will become slaves to all the cows of the world. I know this is true because it has been written though the inspiration of the mighty cow council and that if you really believe you also can sit at their right front hoof. How is this any different then your religion? I don’t see it as any different other then it is more comical.

Besides, if God wanted to he could make his existence known in no uncertain terms. If we’re cut off from God it is by his choice.

Of course in *your* world these things don’t count as evidence. Because you have established rules to which all truth claims must submit. (Of course the authority on which you have established those rules (rather than any others) can only be supported by circular reasoning.) But you seem content enough with that so long as you hold the keys to knowledge and no-one gets to upset your autonomy.

I am arguing from within a world in which Jesus is Lord – I totally admit that. I don’t mind telling you that’s my premise. You say to yourselves “That’s ridiculous, where’s the evidence?” The whole world is declaring that Jesus is Lord. The mountains, trees, sun, moon and stars are proclaiming Christ and I’d love to tell you how some day if you were interested. Of course you’re not interested because all you can say is: “That’s circular”. Well duh! Well done everyone for spotting that – you’ve read Wilfrid Hodges too!! But this also is circular: “Scientific method is Lord and the evidence for this is the success of the scientific method when judged by science.”

And the great tragedy is that in the small world you’ve made for yourselves, any authoritative voice that does not submit to falsifiability you silence from the outset. Therefore a living God who speaks on His own authority *cannot* contradict you. Do you see what you’ve done? You have shut your ears to any divine Voice. It’s emphatically *not* that you are listening and can’t make it out. It’s that from the beginning and on your own authority you have refused to heed any Voice that speaks on its own authority. For you God has to be falsifiable – and therefore cannot be God.

There is no intellectual credibility to this, there is no openness to truth and it is spiritual suicide.

Guys and gals, you are all loved by God in ways you cannot imagine. But I need to move on – and this time I mean it. Maybe I’ll drop back in on another discussion. Thanks.

what we can say with absolute certainty is that the book on which your explanations rely is deeply, deeply flawed – it’s full of things which people like you would, not so long ago, have burned people like me at the stake for denying – despite the fact that they are false. One also has to consider that cotemperaneous historical texts don’t mention Jesus at all – in this case, the lack of evidence is pretty good evidence in itself. There were historians in the Mediteranean at that time who wrote extensively on events and current affairs, but Jesus is not mentioned once. It follows that he cannot have been as amazing as the bible claims, or the whole area would have been talking about nothing else for several years.

Fixed that for you.

Here’s what you’re actually saying:

Premise 1: Jesus rose from the dead according to the Scriptures.
Premise 2: Jesus will raise us from the dead.

These are premises. And none of them are falsifiable.

So the fact that Jesus bones were not found is proof that he rose from the dead?
Let me offer you some other possibilities
1. We haven’t found them since the correct place wasn’t dug yet.
2. They were found but not recognized as belonging to jesus.
3. Jesus is a fictional character.
Any of these is far more likely then your explanation.

Science begins where religion and philosophy end.

Glen, I understand your point about science not being able to validate itself against any unobservable reality, but your conclusion about science being circular doesn’t follow from this. What it means is that science may offer an incomplete description of reality, which is perfectly in keeping with the realization that science may not tell us everything. However, incompleteness is not circularity. Should some unobservable (supernatural) reality exist, this doesn’t invalidate our observable reality.

Scientific findings can be observed to be true, even if they show an incomplete picture of the truth. The self-proclaimed truth of religion and theology, on the other hand, is impossible to verify.

John, you mention quantum physics as an example of how there may be an undiscovered reality that shapes our very existence, yet it is not observed by science. To which I agree wholeheartedly. However, you should both consider this significant detail:

There’s a fundamental difference between having an incomplete explanation of reality, and stating that there’s a whole other independent reality which has certain attributes.

The first is an admission of a lack of knowledge, which is the view science takes and really the driving force of scientific progress. The other is a positive claim to know the details of an unverifiable alternative reality, which is the view theology takes.

Comparing the two, science is humble in its attempt to only explain the reality which we live in, while theology is arrogant in its assertiveness. Theology claims to know a whole bunch of stuff, all of which is inherently unverifiable, and all of which varies wildly depending on who you ask. And much of it even shown to be false by science.

Science has limits, yes, but it’s still infinitely more useful and inherently more truthful than the “methodology” of theology which allows one to simply make stuff up and pass it as truth.