This is a continuation of the debate between myself and J.P. Holding which is being hosted on the TheologyWeb.
First off, I had been mistakenly referring to Mr. J. P. Holding as "J. P. Holdings" (an errant 's'.) I stand corrected. I went back and edited my original response. I made no other changes except to correct this error. So, on to the issues:
CH1:
JPH: I think Jacobsen has assumed here that I think "stupid/involved" is something we can't help. I don't think that's the case at all. I do think it is of our own free will that we choose this direction and saying it "originated from God" would be false.
I have several comments to make in response. First, I thought that it was indeed guaranteed that all men are sinners and will at least occasionally not do right. The only man who (supposedly) never did wrong was Jesus Christ. So, that seems to be proof that we can't be expected to always do right. Secondly, regardless of whether that bit about original sin is true or not, I would say it is fair to say that it is man's nature to not always do right. If, in all the history of man, it has never been the case where all men have done right, it is a reasonable conclusion that by our nature, we don't always do what is right. Then that brings us back to the question, where did our nature come from? It must be from God, right? Where else?
JPH: As for why one chooses good and one evil, I simply hold that we have a "wildcard" ability to do so--not from our nature or environment, but a genuine ability to choose, the same way God can.
But God never chooses to do wrong, correct? Why not? Is not it His nature to not do wrong? And if He has such a nature, then why did He make us defective--with a nature to sometimes do wrong?
JPH: To be that way would require us to be God. Is it logically possible for God to make someone as powerful as He is?
Well, first off, I don't see any logical contradiction there, so it seems logically possible. Secondly, God could have made us omniscient, but not omnipotent, no? So, we would be as knowledgeable as God, but not as powerful. This seems logically possible as well. Of course you could argue that must not be what God wanted to do, or we would be so. But I'm just saying that there is no apparent reason He couldn't have.
Third, I'd say that even if God didn't want us either omniscient nor omnipotent, it seems reasonable He could have made us at least a bit smarter than we are. Smart enough that those of us (like presumably me) who are too dumb to recognize God's work would be better able to do so.
JPH: As far as I know, God is quite satisfied with His choice. And I don't see that we can't match up with the requirements: Be loyal to God.
Apparently, not everybody is loyal to God. So apparently, God is not satisfied with all His pets.
PJ: This is true, but for one, does God really want a “greater good” on Earth anyway?
JPH: Christian theology holds this to be the case; if one wants to get into a possibility of a "malevolent God" or a deistic one then that runs beyond what Strobel was trying to defend.
Remember, I considered my own theology (that I mentioned earlier) to be Christian. I didn't believe that God was "malevolent" per se. I believed that God did want an eventual greater good--in heaven. It's just that I believed that God expected there to be no greater good to be employed by man on Earth. And my own theology seems very similar to the end-times, Armageddon theorists--who believe that man will nearly destroy himself before Jesus Christ returns. Since Strobel didn't comment one way or the other on this idea, I don't think we can necessarily assume that he and/or his experts might not agree in whole or in part to this kind of theology. But, I won't argue this idea further.
PJ: But, if we assume that God does indeed
want a greater good on Earth, surely an omniscient, omnipotent Creator could
know how to bring this greater good without needing something bad to happen
first.
JPH: "Surely"? Here again, this is merely second-guessing
theoretical omniscience, which is the province of emotional, reactive outrage
lacking rational basis.
You are second guessing just as much. But, which choice of the following is the more "rational" choice?
1. An omniscient, omnipotent Creator would need a bad to happen first for a greater good.
2. An omniscient, omnipotent Creator would not need a bad to happen first for a greater good.
Of the two choices, I would say option 2 is clearly the more rational choice. In fact, based on my understanding of omnipotence, which I discuss some more a bit later, omnipotence is supposed to be able to do anything that is not logically impossible. Since there is no logical contradiction to choice 1, then it God should indeed be able to create whatever greater good He wants without need of a bad to happen first.
JPH: In short, God does not create heaven "that way" for us -- God sanctifies us to be suitable for it.
Of course you are again just guessing this is what God does. It's one of those things that I can't prove wrong. But I can say it is illogical for God to have created us "unsanctified". For to create us "unsanctified" means that God created us intentionally imperfect and therefore must have wanted some people to go to hell.
JPH: That's very interesting, but diversity of opinion proves
little. What would matter is whether a given position can survive critical
evaluation. To assume lack of clarity is the problem is to assume that persons
on each side are both informed and fair, which given the record of encounters I
have had, I rather doubt. If Jacobsen doubts this, he may select an issue for
discussion.
You are setting yourself up
as judge. You ask if persons on
both sides are “informed and fair” and then say you doubt it.
But that is easy for you to say. Some
Christian that happens to be on the other side of any particular issue than you
are could likewise charge that you are either not informed or not fair.
From my point of view as the non-believer, I have no reason to accept
your self-appointment of judge of the other side, nor vice-versa.
I can say that I have read writings from Christians on both sides of
several prominent issues, and found that both sides often make persuasive
arguments. And I had this same
assessment when I was a Christian.
I think I will decline picking a specific issue to debate this on—for in order to prove my assertion that both sides can be persuasive, I’d have to pick an issue, and then argue both sides. And then you could presumably argue that one or the other side I present isn’t “informed” or “fair”. I think this would be a fruitless endeavor.
CH2:
JPH: I appreciate Jacobsen's willingness to revise material in
light of commentary.
Another Christian, Mr. Ron
Stephenson, attempted a defense of Strobel from my critique, as you have done.
He never finished, he only completed through first four chapters.
I would say that although I disagreed with almost everything he said, his
input was still very valuable. His
input led to my significant rewrite. On
my site, I mention that I consider my articles to be perpetually works in
progress. And of course I should
leave open the door to the possibility of your input leading to me fundamentally
changing my position. Although I
can say so far, that eventuality seems unlikely…
JPH: I admit there is always any excuse possible, but the issue
turns to whether such explanations are rational, or merely efforts to avoid a
"miracle" conclusion. The swoon theory is an excellent example of
this, as is the one Jacobsen mentions about Pilate being paid off.
I would agree that the
swoon theory, and my “Pilate was paid off” theory, are indeed
low-probability theories. But,
people are known to be deceitful, and/or to be merely honestly mistaken; people
are not known to rise from the dead. Therefore
theories involving deceit or mistakes, even if unlikely, are still inherently
more likely than being raised from the dead.
JPH: Such explanations require too much propping up, too much that
is contrary to known data, to be allowed to be considered "possible"
in any historical sense.
The problem is, there is no
“known data”. All the reports
are from highly biased sources. Even
if the sources got the story mostly right, a few details here or there wrong,
and then all of a sudden some of these low-probability possibilities become more
easily probable.
And, it is indeed fair to bring up the fact that the Gospel writers are biased sources. It is indeed true that someone can be biased, and yet report fairly. On the other hand, if your only sources are highly biased, one must reasonably consider that as a possible influence. If you want to know if George W. Bush is a good president, do you only ask his cabinet members? If it were to be the case that indeed the only reports you have happen to be by his cabinet members, then you are forced to piece together the best you have. But you’d be a fool to blindly accept them at face value. Particularly if they said things like, “and George W. Bush rose from the dead to defeat Saddam Hussein!”
CH4:
JPH: the Gospels are in the genre of historical biography
So is the Gospel of Thomas, and yet it is considered by most Christians as fraud or fiction. I understand that there were also a number of other gospels written and used by various Christian sects. The point being, being of the "genre of historical biography" doesn't make them true and even Christians realize this when talking about any Gospel other than the canonical ones.
CH5:
JPH: I think Martin's point would be more than one cannot have
false views of the Trinity, not that you are at risk if you are ignorant of it.
That doesn’t quite directly address my point. The Trinity is really important, right? God wants people to know about it, right? God is omnipotent, right? And yet, not everybody knows about it. How could this be possible?
JPH: Jesus says, "No one comes to the Father except by me." He lets those in he wishes to. I think Jacobsen has rather oversimplified my point here. Perhaps he can address what I say in more detail later/elsewhere.
Though perhaps I did "oversimplify." But my basic point is that the swamp/rapids/stream analogy seems to really say: "Christianity is the one true religion, and nothing else is true--but we gotta come up with some escape hatch because we'd look like fools if we said everybody else was going to hell." This kind of idea opens the door to questions like, "what if someone heard the Gospel only once, and the preacher who told them the Gospel was a child molester?" And if that person might be saved, what about the person who heard the Gospel many times, but it was from Tammy Fay Bakker? What I'm basically getting at, is that your theology here really muddies the waters as to exactly who gets saved and who doesn't.
CH6:
PJ:
Why shouldn’t those that have decided they would rather spend eternity
without God have a way to spend eternity productively?
JPH: If they have rejected God,
then they have already rejected the principle of productivity in their lives.
For myself, I would say
that I haven’t “rejected” God, I simply haven’t found the evidence of
His existence compelling. However, I would presume that you would say that
I’m fooling myself and have indeed “rejected” God.
While I don’t agree with that assessment, even if I have “rejected”
God, I have definitely not rejected “the principle of productivity” in my
life! If I were to do that, I might
as well commit suicide.
JPH: On what basis? Rationality? No, what Jacobsen calls
"changing their mind" is actually fickleness, not a firm commitment to
an overarching worldview or life-decision.
Well, I can concede that
major viewpoints don’t generally change overnight.
For example, someone that has been a life-long political conservative
doesn’t often change their viewpoint to being a political liberal.
But it does happen. In fact,
presumably, you do hope for it to happen to those who have been life-long
atheists to change to being a Christian. It
then becomes irrational for you to think that it might happen any time up until
the moment I die—but if it doesn’t, it wouldn’t happen for all eternity.
JPH: But does Zeno require that someone move "essentially
zero distance"?
Actually, yes.
“Zeno’s Paradox” is where each step is infinitely small.
PJ:
How could anything ever be “more difficult” for someone omnipotent?
JPH: I'll answer that question with
a question Jacobsen should know of: Is it difficult for God to create a stone so
heavy He can't lift it? Or, is it "difficult" for God to make Himself
disappear? And if He can do neither, does that mean he is not omnipotent? No,
because these are all questions of logic, not power.
This could really open the
proverbial can of worms. For one,
I’m not entirely convinced that omnipotence is a logically coherent concept.
For example, there is nothing illogical about making objects too big to
lift. I can make an object too big
for myself to lift. It is only when
framed within the context of an omnipotent being that an object too big to lift
becomes illogical. That implies
that the logical problem of God not being able to create a rock too big to lift
is not in the task, but within the concept of omnipotence itself.
But, I can imagine debating this on its own at length, and I’m not sure
we want to go there. So, I guess I'll assume that omnipotence is logically
coherent for the purposes of our conversations.
Okay, so if omnipotence is
logically coherent, what does it mean? I understand it to mean that God can do anything that is
logically possible. If it does not
mean that, then it seems to mean nothing at all.
So, if God can do anything logically possible, unless you can demonstrate
why it is not logically possible for God to be able to create a world of more
than ten or so people where everybody is saved, then your argument fails.
Further, I’d say that
your interpretation of Moreland’s phrase of “more difficult” to mean
“logically impossible” to be rather a stretch. If he meant “impossible,” rather than “difficult,” I
think Moreland would have said so. But
if he really did mean impossible, then where is the dividing line, and why?
Moreland said that God could “probably” create ten people that He
knew would follow Him. But more than that would become “more difficult”.
Where is the cutoff, and why? Where’s
the equation that says how many people could be created where all are saved?
Frankly, the more we debate this issue, the more clear (to me anyway)
that this line of argument that you and/or Moreland present is g-a-r-b-a-g-e.
PJ:
But of all the people that get 78,463 chances, and fail, surely some of
them would choose right on the 78,464 chance.
JPH: Surely? Not at all. There is
no rational reason to say so; this is merely an emotional reaction. If anything
I would say 78,463 choices the same makes it more sure than any future choices
will be the same, if not worse. And any alleged "change of mind" would
not be a sincere one. I wonder if any human judge would revoke a sentence from
someone who said, "You only gave me 78,463 chances. Come on!"
Groan… You regularly
throw the line that I’m just being emotional, rather than logical—and then
pull out these kinds of emotional, illogical arguments…
Last I heard, we aren’t talking about a human judge, we’re talking
about the divine Creator of the universe,
And I thought He wasn’t supposed to care how many times we fall down,
so long as we eventually choose right. Am
I mistaken?
Granted, somebody who
chooses 78,463 times the same thing, likely will choose the same thing the
78,464th time, 78,465th time, etc.
But if you yourself didn’t have some hope that maybe some people might
choose God on the 78,464th try, then you’d have no purpose in being
an apologist. But then, if it might
be true that on the 78,464th try—whilst on Earth—I choose God;
then it might also be true that on the 78,464th try after I’m dead,
I might choose God.
Also, you charge that if
there was a change of mind, it wouldn’t be a sincere one.
Last time, you complained regularly about me doing mind reading, but here
you are mind reading. How do you know it wouldn’t be sincere?
JPH: God has multiple opportunities to bring you into yet another
situation where you will make the same decision." And one lifetime IS
enough for that to happen.
When you say “one
lifetime IS enough for that to happen” it appears that you could mean one of
two different things. You could
mean:
1.
One lifetime provides enough opportunities for each person to be certain
that if that individual would ever choose God, they will do so within the
provided opportunities.
2.
One lifetime provides enough opportunities to be “fair” (in God’s
opinion) and that if, in those opportunities, you don’t take them, then God no
longer cares whether or not you would do so if you had further opportunities.
So, could you clarify which of these you mean? However, option 1 seems illogical. People accept Christ every day. If any of those people that accepted Christ today had died yesterday, they would have had too few opportunities. Therefore logic dictates option 1 could not be true. Option 2 seems at least possible. But this seems inconsistent with the idea of God being a loving God. Option 2 has God saying, in effect, “you had your shot, tough luck”.
By the way, partly to better address some of the issues you raise, I revised my critique for sub-objections 7 & 8. If you wish to comment further on these two sub-objections, please read my latest versions first.
CH7:
JPH: Yes, though if those who went after witches truly believed
this, even if incorrectly, then that makes them less culpable than otherwise.
I can accept this… except
it still leaves the Bible very culpable for proclaiming death sentences for
nonexistent crimes.
JPH: That's "all for blaming..."? I just don't see that
kind of emotional impetus in Woodbridge's comments
You re-quoted one of
Woodbridge’s comments that I quoted, but not the next.
The next was where he said that he could see how atheism’s lack of
moral framework would lead to Stalin, Lenin, etc.
This certainly sounds to me like “blaming” atheism.
JPH:
Since Jacobsen admits elsewhere that a moral framework provided by God would be
his preference, I wonder what Jacobsen is on about, since he seems to say the
same thing Woodbridge does.
Not quite.
While I would indeed agree that a moral framework provided by God would
be my preference, that does not necessarily mean that a lack of one provided by
God inherently leads to immorality. We
could of course then bring up the age-old debate as to how much of Stalin,
Lenin, Hitler, etc., can be blamed on atheism, vs. how much can be blamed on
their thirst for power. Hitler of course claimed to be a Christian, though I know
many Christians argue that he was a “closet atheist”. In fact, I have a paper on my site by a Christian who argues
this position. Bottom line is,
I’m not entirely certain how much of such regimes can be blamed specifically
on atheism.
Ultimately however, I must make a confession. And that is, well, being an atheist myself, I hope that atheism doesn’t lead to immorality. And I’ve read arguments by other atheists, such as Dan Barker, who argue that morality is ultimately biologically based—and claim it really always has been. Yet I still find myself not completely convinced, and unsure what the world would be like if atheism were the dominate belief system. I honestly don’t know.
CH8:
JPH: I would say, "100% I don't care." Bad choice of
topic, perhaps; the Kennedy assassination is not one of my favorite topics and I
have never taken a look at it in depth. But on such topics as I do have
interest, I am 100% either way, or I say nothing.
Well, at the very least,
you have conceded that on topics that you don’t look at in depth, it is
possible to not be 100% one way or the other. But I’d again say it is just as likely and reasonable to
not be 100% one way or the other on topics you have looked at.
You may not have looked into the Kennedy assassination much, and frankly,
neither have I. But of course many people have.
And it would be (in my view) quite reasonable for someone who has spent
hours and hours investigating it only to say, “‘x’ evidence points towards
a single gunman, ‘y’ evidence points towards a second gunman, and either is
possible”.
In fact, I would argue that
someone who takes such a position is far more reasonable than someone that takes
a 100% one way or the other position. A
100% position is an arrogant position. It
is saying, “the people on the other side of this issue are 100% wrong”.
Someone that spends many hours studying the Kennedy assassination and
says they are 100% on the side of a lone gunman is saying that someone else who
has spent many hours and concluded otherwise is 100% wrong.
This is a position of arrogance.
JPH: Those who use "various levels" are indeed fooling
themselves, or trying to have a foot in both camps so as to please both sides.
More mind reading from Mr.
Holding. No, being at “various
levels” is not (necessarily) an attempt “to please both side;” it is being
honest enough to admit both sides of an argument have some validity, instead of
saying one side is 100% right, the other side is 100% wrong.
JPH: And that's it. here we go from here, I leave to Paul to
decide. I would like to look at each chapter in depth if that is within his
timeframe.
As to where to go from
here, well, hopefully we both should be open to at least the potential
possibility of having our position fundamentally changed by good arguments from
the other side. Yet I think both of
us have heard most of the arguments from the other side and therefore not a high
probability for either one of us to fundamentally change position.
I don’t see it too likely that after reading this material of mine, you
will think to yourself, “by golly, Jacobsen’s right!” and dismantle
Tektonics.org. I guess the best we
could reasonably hope for would be to crack the other guy’s armor, so to
speak--meaning that you or I might find that one or two of our own arguments no
longer compelling. But for
the most part, I think our arguments are primarily directed at “our viewing
audience,” the fence sitters who are looking to see who has the better
arguments. I would think the “fence sitters” should see that I have
(so far anyway) provided the better arguments.
But I suppose you might be apt to disagree…
As far as looking “at
each chapter in depth,” I’m a bit unsure of what you are proposing.
I feel that my original critique goes into most chapters fairly deeply,
except for chapters 5, 7 and 8. Those
particular chapters I simply had less that I wished to comment.
If there are any points in those chapters—or any other for that
matter—that I skipped and you would like to cover, I am open to discussion.
Use the navigation buttons below to continue to next round of the debate.
