Response to Tektonics - Part XI
What follows is round 11 with my debate with JP Holding:
JPH: Experience and data indicates otherwise. "Some times" is
JPH: not sufficient. The record of action speaks for itself: The two
JPH: do not cohabit and never can.
Please consider enrolling in a logic class at your neighborhood community college or university. Here is a simple page on logic: http://www.molloy.edu/sophia/logic/contents.htm
Basic logic. "If P then Q" is shown to be disproved if there is even one case of P but not Q. You are arguing "if P then Q" where P is "free will" and Q is "evil." I have shown at least one instance where free will did not result in evil. Therefore the argument is shown false. You may then say that evil and free will are generally correlated. But correlation does not prove causation. Even when "if P then Q" is true, that does not prove P causes Q. A third factor R may cause both P and Q. In short, you still have failed to prove your assertion.
JPH: Yes indeed -- for innocence makes all the difference.
If God wants "innocence", he's capable of creating "innocence" is He not? Why not zap up everybody to heaven when they are 5? If you respond that somebody must bear them and raise them, surely God can create some angels or other entities to take care of at least the raising part. And surely God can create them Himself.
JPH: Blaming "design" is like blaming a cookie jar for having a lid.
Bad analogy. Bad argument to boot. If Brand God's cookie jars always seem to ship out of the factory broken, there is something wrong with Brand God's design or manufacturing process. And when customers call to the Brand God's cookie jar factory, the Plant Manager always says, "So, you got a busted cookie jar? Must be the cookie jar's fault".
JPH: If your resort is to a theoretical idea that it is within power to create a
JPH: being that could never at any point sin, we are back again to what has
JPH: been my premier issue with your criticisms: They are purely theoretical,
JPH: rather than actual, and rely on knowledge that is inaccessible.
But we are back to the fact that it is YOUR problem to show that it is NOT possible for God to create a being that could never sin. Besides, you even acknowledge that it is indeed possible, heaven will be without sin.
JPH: and rely on knowledge that is inaccessible.
But you are expecting me to believe in things for which knowledge is inaccessible. They could be true, but I can't know it. There could be an invisible alligator in my pants about to chomp my gonads off. But I can't know it.
JPH: And thus they are not viable as reasons to doubt.
And this relates to my "premier issue" with your responses--it is indeed reason to doubt. If there is an invisible alligator in my pants, the knowledge is inaccessible to me, but I still am reasonable to doubt there is one. (Ouch! He bit my gonads off!)
JPH: One must accept the patronage of God and the mediation of His broker
JPH: (Christ). I don't see a different answer for any of the groups you named,
JPH: other than that some such as 3 or 5 may accept an equivalent concept;
JPH: [...] that these persons believe about Allah what is true about Yahweh, in
JPH: terms of His nature, and thus believe in the concept necessary even if they
JPH: have the names wrong. But I think that would amount to conceptually the
JPH: same answer.
That "conceptually the same answer" sure slides by easy. Buddha doesn't have the same conceptual purpose in Buddhism as Christ does in Christianity. And as far as I know, most Christians would say that Mohammad is not conceptually the same as Christ. Christians used to kill Muslims because they didn't believe the same "concept". Hell, even Catholics and Protestants used to. Of course you would say that Christians should not do this and it is contrary to Christian teachings. But the bottom line here is, Christians have generally not felt other religions were a good substitute or "conceptually the same" as Christianity.
Besides, say I was taught Islam in a fundamentalist Islamic family in a fundamentalist Islamic country. Then I start to study the Koran, and at first I believe it because that is what mom and pop told me to believe. But as I get older, I start to find some of the teachings in my local mosque troubling. If I'm the young Muslim, you would have to agree that I should indeed find these teachings troubling, no? So now at this point, why exactly should I, the young Muslim disillusioned with the teachings of my religion, why should I accept the "patronage of God"?
In short, your claim that what you are proposing is "conceptually the same" is unfalsifiable as you can make the "concept" as fluid as need-be to force-fit different belief systems as "conceptually" the same. So in that sense your claim is unfalsifiable. But, in the sense of any reasonable comparison of "concepts", I think it safe to say that your claim is falsifiable and falsified. The concepts are just not the same to any reasonable degree.
JPH: I don't see that to be so, unless you wish to endorse a world
JPH: wherein all are killed as fetuses.
Sure. Why not? If dying as a fetus would have provided me with eternal life and happiness, and if I was given the choice to change history such that I was killed as a fetus, I'd take that in an instant. Sounds like a great choice to me. How 'bout you? Wouldn't you take that?
Or, if you say no, lets change this a bit. Say that before you were given that choice of reversing history and dying as an infant, you were also shown irrefutable proof that Islam is true, not Christianity. But since you had picked Christianity before giving this knowledge, you are destined for hell. So, your only choices then are to die and go to hell, or have your entire life erased and die as an infant and go to heaven. Which choice would you pick then?
JPH: if it cannot be proven; and if you admit it cannot be proven, then
JPH: why should anyone else accept it, short of an emotional appeal?
Well, to go back to a statement of yours early in our debate, "I don't see that we can have heaven as it is/will be without the contiguous reality of what we have had here." Well, I don't see why you can't see it, given that according to your own numbers, 50% of all people don't need any significant "contiguous reality". Your original claim of the requirement of a contiguous reality is unfalsifiable. I can't prove or disprove whether or not any specific person needs a "contiguous reality". But again, to any reasonable degree, your claim is falsified--50% of all people don't need a contiguous reality. You haven't given me any reason, "emotional appeal" or otherwise, to consider otherwise.
JPH: I cannot agree that such a line would not exist,
Again, an unfalsifiable claim. And it is up to you to give me a reason to agree with you. You haven't.
JPH: And yet it seems to me that the "influencability" is itself a
JPH: matter of personal choice. If ads are the clue, then isn't it
JPH: arguable that such a person has chosen to make themselves
JPH: easily swayed -- whether out of laziness or some other choice?
It is indeed true that people can train themselves to be *less* easily influenced. I personally don't drink any alcohol. And at least so for, no amount of girls in bikinis in beer commercials has successfully persuaded me to buy a beer. (If the girl was actually included in the transaction, I might reassess that... : ) Yet on the other hand, I think sometimes we fool ourselves into thinking we aren't so influencable--such as my not buying a beer despite massive exposure to influence to do so--and yet be easily influenced in some other way. Ultimately, I think all of us are influencable creatures, even if some of us can resist some influences that others cannot. I think most anybody who has studied psychology in any significant amount would agree with my assessment.
JPH: I spent time on ex-Christian forums recently for research and I'd
JPH: say some of these were so coarsely hostile...
I can agree that atheists can often be hostile to religion. I try to not, but I confess that I can get "hostile" towards bad arguments. And in general, I find theistic arguments bad arguments. I know I should try to better avoid being hostile. But I can confess that sometimes I get annoyed when people express arguments that I know are just plain bad arguments.
JPH: Consider that religion as part of our lives, is usually part of them
JPH: from the beginning.
Just as an FYI, my parents were "nominal Christians". I was baptized, and my parents did occasionally express some religious beliefs--but this was the exception rather than the rule. We never attended church--not once. I don't know, but I think maybe my baptism was the last time my parents were ever in a church. If someone might knock at the door, like a Jehovah's Witness, my parents would say something like they believe in God but not in church and send them away.
JPH: Perhaps; however, the problem cited in a practical rather
JPH: than an epistemic one. The Buddhist is still right and so are the Indians.
But it is indeed a real problem, if you wish to define it as a "practical" problem so be it. I'll never read all the Buddhist Sutra, Hindu Vedas, Koran, Native American scriptures and history, etc.
JPH: Of course many become Christians with no perception of the Bible
JPH: as divine, but as a merely human yet reliable record. So is that
JPH: indeed enough of a conclusion?
Actually, no. As far as "reliable", ultimately I have no way to know. You will probably point out to various archeological finds that verify that at least some portions are reliable. On the other hand, there are portions that archeology does NOT verify, such as Noah's flood. In short, no, I don't see any reason to feel it is overall reliable, particularly in regards to claims of the supernatural.
PJ: Don't parents give their children buckets and buckets of "personalized service"?
JPH: If they do, I don't want to be around them as they will be spoiled and
JPH: temperamental brats.
My reference to "personalized service" need not imply waiting hand-and-foot on your children. "Personalized service" would even include implementing punishment. But actually, for infants, parents really do have to wait on the children "hand-and-foot", including 2 AM feedings and the like. As the child grows, the form of parenting changes, but it does indeed mean a lot of "personalized service" from helping with school work to punishing bad behavior *and* rewarding good behavior, food, clothing, a game of basketball or other preferred sport, etc. Parenting does indeed include a lot of "personalized service" and your dismissal of the idea as making "spoiled brats" is just too simplistic to the point of being just flat wrong.
PJ: Is everyone expected to read CfC (or equivalent work) AND
PJ: be capable of understanding the issues sufficiently to discern
PJ: that it is indeed accurate?
JPH: I don't see why not. Any disciple or would-be disciple worth a
JPH: thought would do so.
Well, at the very least, the problem is one of "practicality" that I mentioned earlier. I can't read all the Buddhist Sutra, Hindu Vedas, Koran, Christian apologetics, etc. So, I do think it an unreasonable demand, if merely for "practicality." But, beyond that, even though I indeed have read CfC, how am I supposed to reasonably discern if it is accurate or not?
JPH: I have had replies up to Lowder and Doherty on CFC.
I've read them. I think some of your counter-arguments sound to me to make sense. I think some other of your counter-arguments don't sound convincing. And you are indeed biased, so it is reasonable for me to consider the possibility your arguments are faulty. Of course Lowder and Doherty are also biased, which indeed could color their arguments and presentation. At the end of the day, you still haven't come up with a valid reason why I should be expected to know that your presentation (and Strobel and his experts original presentations) are correct despite the bias; and Lowder and Doherty (who are also biased) are wrong.
PJ: But the bottom line is, even if Strobel and his experts (from CfC) are
PJ: correct, there isn't sufficient reason for me, living roughly 2,000 years
PJ: after the purported events to be able to discern it to be true.
JPH: Do you take this tack as well for all recorded history?
Essentially, yes. In my response to Tophet (which I concede I was overly-testy to his "above the law" comment) I referenced Richard Carrier's article discussing Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. Although Carrier gave what seemed like good reasons to believe Caesar did indeed cross the Rubicon, ultimately, I have no real idea. I didn't check Carrier's sources. Maybe Carrier's sources for all the evidence of crossing the Rubicon are all Caesar worshippers. How should I know? I can concede that I think that isn't terribly likely, probably Caesar crossed the Rubicon. But I don't have any "faith" in it. I don't get on my knees and sing, "Caesar crossed the Rubicon, this I know, for Richard Carrier tells me so!" If somehow, it is discovered that Caesar didn't cross the Rubicon, it'd be no skin off my back.
JPH: Experience and data indicates otherwise. "Some times" is
JPH: not sufficient. The record of action speaks for itself: The two
JPH: do not cohabit and never can.
Please consider enrolling in a logic class at your neighborhood community college or university. Here is a simple page on logic: http://www.molloy.edu/sophia/logic/contents.htm
Basic logic. "If P then Q" is shown to be disproved if there is even one case of P but not Q. You are arguing "if P then Q" where P is "free will" and Q is "evil." I have shown at least one instance where free will did not result in evil. Therefore the argument is shown false. You may then say that evil and free will are generally correlated. But correlation does not prove causation. Even when "if P then Q" is true, that does not prove P causes Q. A third factor R may cause both P and Q. In short, you still have failed to prove your assertion.
JPH: Yes indeed -- for innocence makes all the difference.
If God wants "innocence", he's capable of creating "innocence" is He not? Why not zap up everybody to heaven when they are 5? If you respond that somebody must bear them and raise them, surely God can create some angels or other entities to take care of at least the raising part. And surely God can create them Himself.
JPH: Blaming "design" is like blaming a cookie jar for having a lid.
Bad analogy. Bad argument to boot. If Brand God's cookie jars always seem to ship out of the factory broken, there is something wrong with Brand God's design or manufacturing process. And when customers call to the Brand God's cookie jar factory, the Plant Manager always says, "So, you got a busted cookie jar? Must be the cookie jar's fault".
JPH: If your resort is to a theoretical idea that it is within power to create a
JPH: being that could never at any point sin, we are back again to what has
JPH: been my premier issue with your criticisms: They are purely theoretical,
JPH: rather than actual, and rely on knowledge that is inaccessible.
But we are back to the fact that it is YOUR problem to show that it is NOT possible for God to create a being that could never sin. Besides, you even acknowledge that it is indeed possible, heaven will be without sin.
JPH: and rely on knowledge that is inaccessible.
But you are expecting me to believe in things for which knowledge is inaccessible. They could be true, but I can't know it. There could be an invisible alligator in my pants about to chomp my gonads off. But I can't know it.
JPH: And thus they are not viable as reasons to doubt.
And this relates to my "premier issue" with your responses--it is indeed reason to doubt. If there is an invisible alligator in my pants, the knowledge is inaccessible to me, but I still am reasonable to doubt there is one. (Ouch! He bit my gonads off!)
JPH: One must accept the patronage of God and the mediation of His broker
JPH: (Christ). I don't see a different answer for any of the groups you named,
JPH: other than that some such as 3 or 5 may accept an equivalent concept;
JPH: [...] that these persons believe about Allah what is true about Yahweh, in
JPH: terms of His nature, and thus believe in the concept necessary even if they
JPH: have the names wrong. But I think that would amount to conceptually the
JPH: same answer.
That "conceptually the same answer" sure slides by easy. Buddha doesn't have the same conceptual purpose in Buddhism as Christ does in Christianity. And as far as I know, most Christians would say that Mohammad is not conceptually the same as Christ. Christians used to kill Muslims because they didn't believe the same "concept". Hell, even Catholics and Protestants used to. Of course you would say that Christians should not do this and it is contrary to Christian teachings. But the bottom line here is, Christians have generally not felt other religions were a good substitute or "conceptually the same" as Christianity.
Besides, say I was taught Islam in a fundamentalist Islamic family in a fundamentalist Islamic country. Then I start to study the Koran, and at first I believe it because that is what mom and pop told me to believe. But as I get older, I start to find some of the teachings in my local mosque troubling. If I'm the young Muslim, you would have to agree that I should indeed find these teachings troubling, no? So now at this point, why exactly should I, the young Muslim disillusioned with the teachings of my religion, why should I accept the "patronage of God"?
In short, your claim that what you are proposing is "conceptually the same" is unfalsifiable as you can make the "concept" as fluid as need-be to force-fit different belief systems as "conceptually" the same. So in that sense your claim is unfalsifiable. But, in the sense of any reasonable comparison of "concepts", I think it safe to say that your claim is falsifiable and falsified. The concepts are just not the same to any reasonable degree.
JPH: I don't see that to be so, unless you wish to endorse a world
JPH: wherein all are killed as fetuses.
Sure. Why not? If dying as a fetus would have provided me with eternal life and happiness, and if I was given the choice to change history such that I was killed as a fetus, I'd take that in an instant. Sounds like a great choice to me. How 'bout you? Wouldn't you take that?
Or, if you say no, lets change this a bit. Say that before you were given that choice of reversing history and dying as an infant, you were also shown irrefutable proof that Islam is true, not Christianity. But since you had picked Christianity before giving this knowledge, you are destined for hell. So, your only choices then are to die and go to hell, or have your entire life erased and die as an infant and go to heaven. Which choice would you pick then?
JPH: if it cannot be proven; and if you admit it cannot be proven, then
JPH: why should anyone else accept it, short of an emotional appeal?
Well, to go back to a statement of yours early in our debate, "I don't see that we can have heaven as it is/will be without the contiguous reality of what we have had here." Well, I don't see why you can't see it, given that according to your own numbers, 50% of all people don't need any significant "contiguous reality". Your original claim of the requirement of a contiguous reality is unfalsifiable. I can't prove or disprove whether or not any specific person needs a "contiguous reality". But again, to any reasonable degree, your claim is falsified--50% of all people don't need a contiguous reality. You haven't given me any reason, "emotional appeal" or otherwise, to consider otherwise.
JPH: I cannot agree that such a line would not exist,
Again, an unfalsifiable claim. And it is up to you to give me a reason to agree with you. You haven't.
JPH: And yet it seems to me that the "influencability" is itself a
JPH: matter of personal choice. If ads are the clue, then isn't it
JPH: arguable that such a person has chosen to make themselves
JPH: easily swayed -- whether out of laziness or some other choice?
It is indeed true that people can train themselves to be *less* easily influenced. I personally don't drink any alcohol. And at least so for, no amount of girls in bikinis in beer commercials has successfully persuaded me to buy a beer. (If the girl was actually included in the transaction, I might reassess that... : ) Yet on the other hand, I think sometimes we fool ourselves into thinking we aren't so influencable--such as my not buying a beer despite massive exposure to influence to do so--and yet be easily influenced in some other way. Ultimately, I think all of us are influencable creatures, even if some of us can resist some influences that others cannot. I think most anybody who has studied psychology in any significant amount would agree with my assessment.
JPH: I spent time on ex-Christian forums recently for research and I'd
JPH: say some of these were so coarsely hostile...
I can agree that atheists can often be hostile to religion. I try to not, but I confess that I can get "hostile" towards bad arguments. And in general, I find theistic arguments bad arguments. I know I should try to better avoid being hostile. But I can confess that sometimes I get annoyed when people express arguments that I know are just plain bad arguments.
JPH: Consider that religion as part of our lives, is usually part of them
JPH: from the beginning.
Just as an FYI, my parents were "nominal Christians". I was baptized, and my parents did occasionally express some religious beliefs--but this was the exception rather than the rule. We never attended church--not once. I don't know, but I think maybe my baptism was the last time my parents were ever in a church. If someone might knock at the door, like a Jehovah's Witness, my parents would say something like they believe in God but not in church and send them away.
JPH: Perhaps; however, the problem cited in a practical rather
JPH: than an epistemic one. The Buddhist is still right and so are the Indians.
But it is indeed a real problem, if you wish to define it as a "practical" problem so be it. I'll never read all the Buddhist Sutra, Hindu Vedas, Koran, Native American scriptures and history, etc.
JPH: Of course many become Christians with no perception of the Bible
JPH: as divine, but as a merely human yet reliable record. So is that
JPH: indeed enough of a conclusion?
Actually, no. As far as "reliable", ultimately I have no way to know. You will probably point out to various archeological finds that verify that at least some portions are reliable. On the other hand, there are portions that archeology does NOT verify, such as Noah's flood. In short, no, I don't see any reason to feel it is overall reliable, particularly in regards to claims of the supernatural.
PJ: Don't parents give their children buckets and buckets of "personalized service"?
JPH: If they do, I don't want to be around them as they will be spoiled and
JPH: temperamental brats.
My reference to "personalized service" need not imply waiting hand-and-foot on your children. "Personalized service" would even include implementing punishment. But actually, for infants, parents really do have to wait on the children "hand-and-foot", including 2 AM feedings and the like. As the child grows, the form of parenting changes, but it does indeed mean a lot of "personalized service" from helping with school work to punishing bad behavior *and* rewarding good behavior, food, clothing, a game of basketball or other preferred sport, etc. Parenting does indeed include a lot of "personalized service" and your dismissal of the idea as making "spoiled brats" is just too simplistic to the point of being just flat wrong.
PJ: Is everyone expected to read CfC (or equivalent work) AND
PJ: be capable of understanding the issues sufficiently to discern
PJ: that it is indeed accurate?
JPH: I don't see why not. Any disciple or would-be disciple worth a
JPH: thought would do so.
Well, at the very least, the problem is one of "practicality" that I mentioned earlier. I can't read all the Buddhist Sutra, Hindu Vedas, Koran, Christian apologetics, etc. So, I do think it an unreasonable demand, if merely for "practicality." But, beyond that, even though I indeed have read CfC, how am I supposed to reasonably discern if it is accurate or not?
JPH: I have had replies up to Lowder and Doherty on CFC.
I've read them. I think some of your counter-arguments sound to me to make sense. I think some other of your counter-arguments don't sound convincing. And you are indeed biased, so it is reasonable for me to consider the possibility your arguments are faulty. Of course Lowder and Doherty are also biased, which indeed could color their arguments and presentation. At the end of the day, you still haven't come up with a valid reason why I should be expected to know that your presentation (and Strobel and his experts original presentations) are correct despite the bias; and Lowder and Doherty (who are also biased) are wrong.
PJ: But the bottom line is, even if Strobel and his experts (from CfC) are
PJ: correct, there isn't sufficient reason for me, living roughly 2,000 years
PJ: after the purported events to be able to discern it to be true.
JPH: Do you take this tack as well for all recorded history?
Essentially, yes. In my response to Tophet (which I concede I was overly-testy to his "above the law" comment) I referenced Richard Carrier's article discussing Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. Although Carrier gave what seemed like good reasons to believe Caesar did indeed cross the Rubicon, ultimately, I have no real idea. I didn't check Carrier's sources. Maybe Carrier's sources for all the evidence of crossing the Rubicon are all Caesar worshippers. How should I know? I can concede that I think that isn't terribly likely, probably Caesar crossed the Rubicon. But I don't have any "faith" in it. I don't get on my knees and sing, "Caesar crossed the Rubicon, this I know, for Richard Carrier tells me so!" If somehow, it is discovered that Caesar didn't cross the Rubicon, it'd be no skin off my back.
