Case for Christian Theism and it's proper use in debates...

[derrick09]

Hey guys, this has to do with my overall view of the case for Christian Theism. I guess most of you all will agree with this but if not, let me know your take on it. But even though God's existence, Christ resurrection, miracles and knowing 100% for sure that Christianity is true can't necessarily be known for sure (at least not right now or even in this lifetime) but based on the classical and most recent arguments and evidences, we can reasonably conclude that Christian Theism is most likely true. As in it has all the momentum on it's side as far as being proven true. And that's what atheist vs. theist debates need to be about. Not about knowing for sure whether or not if God exists and so on, but which view is most likely to be true based on the arguments and evidence at hand. Which to me, especially in the last year or so thanks to the people here and elsewhere, I'm more confident than ever that Christian Theism is the way to go. But anyway, that's all I"ve got for now. Take care and GB.

[Echoside]

I'm not sure if I agree with exactly how that position is worded. Here's an example of how I'm feeling.

There is a box in the room at a party. Tons of people argue about what could be in the box, shake it, pick it up, whatever. But you don't know what is in the box until the party is over, and there is a big prize for whoever guesses right. Christians look at the box, think the evidence leads to God being in there, and don't find out until they die.

Just feels off to me, like the cold, calculating way you could present pascals wager. I'm not a Christian, but in searching I figured it would be more like this :

you look at the box, examine it, shake it, and conclude that it is entirely Reasonable that God might be in the box. As you search, only visible to you, a small part of the box becomes transparent. Through that small crack you experience God, and as your relationship grows and you trust your life to Jesus more and more of the box becomes visible.

What I mean to say is, isn't it possible to experience God while on earth? Isn't it possible to KNOW you are right? I don't know about 100%, because I'm not "100%" sure this isnt the matrix, but about as certain as I am sitting here on a chair looking at a computer?

[Byblos]

I'm not sure if I agree with exactly how that position is worded. Here's an example of how I'm feeling.

There is a box in the room at a party. Tons of people argue about what could be in the box, shake it, pick it up, whatever. But you don't know what is in the box until the party is over, and there is a big prize for whoever guesses right. Christians look at the box, think the evidence leads to God being in there, and don't find out until they die.

Just feels off to me, like the cold, calculating way you could present pascals wager. I'm not a Christian, but in searching I figured it would be more like this :

you look at the box, examine it, shake it, and conclude that it is entirely Reasonable that God might be in the box. As you search, only visible to you, a small part of the box becomes transparent. Through that small crack you experience God, and as your relationship grows and you trust your life to Jesus more and more of the box becomes visible.

What I mean to say is, isn't it possible to experience God while on earth? Isn't it possible to KNOW you are right? I don't know about 100%, because I'm not "100%" sure this isnt the matrix, but about as certain as I am sitting here on a chair looking at a computer?

The first question that would pop into my head is: who put this box there?

[RickD]

I'm not sure if I agree with exactly how that position is worded. Here's an example of how I'm feeling.

There is a box in the room at a party. Tons of people argue about what could be in the box, shake it, pick it up, whatever. But you don't know what is in the box until the party is over, and there is a big prize for whoever guesses right. Christians look at the box, think the evidence leads to God being in there, and don't find out until they die.

Just feels off to me, like the cold, calculating way you could present pascals wager. I'm not a Christian, but in searching I figured it would be more like this :

you look at the box, examine it, shake it, and conclude that it is entirely Reasonable that God might be in the box. As you search, only visible to you, a small part of the box becomes transparent. Through that small crack you experience God, and as your relationship grows and you trust your life to Jesus more and more of the box becomes visible.

What I mean to say is, isn't it possible to experience God while on earth? Isn't it possible to KNOW you are right? I don't know about 100%, because I'm not "100%" sure this isnt the matrix, but about as certain as I am sitting here on a chair looking at a computer?

Echoside, I think I understand what you're saying. The position was written as a very impersonal God. That's not the God of the Bible. He wants a personal relationship with all his creatures. And, you can know for sure that Your relationship with God is as real as anything else. 1 John 5:13 says that we can know we have eternal life. Romans 10:9 tells how one can be saved.

[jlay]

Echoside.

All I can say is Amen!!!

I'm more confident than ever that Christian Theism is the way to go.

What do you mean by that? "more confident?"
Do you believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead?

[derrick09]

I mean that I"m more confident intellectually based on my studies in what I already "believe" (emotionally or presuppositonaly *as you put it*or "just believe") And yes I believe in my *heart* as well as my *mind* that Christ was resurrected(stop trying to divorce yourself from the mind) And stop trying to paint me as a lost person. It's really getting on my nerves..... Also, why in the world are you saying "amen" to a statement from Echoside, he's an atheist or agnostic isn't he? He claims not to be a Christian at the very least.

[Echoside]

I mean that I"m more confident intellectually based on my studies in what I already "believe" (emotionally or presuppositonaly *as you put it*or "just believe") And yes I believe in my *heart* as well as my *mind* that Christ was resurrected(stop trying to divorce yourself from the mind) And stop trying to paint me as a lost person. It's really getting on my nerves..... Also, why in the world are you saying "amen" to a statement from Echoside, he's an atheist or agnostic isn't he? He claims not to be a Christian at the very least.

you are correct, I am an agnostic in the sense that I do not yet follow any specific religion, and am still actively searching for meaning/purpose/truth/whatever you want to call it in my life. I have seen reasonably solid evidence towards Christianity, and even more convincingly I have seen many attempts to discredit Christianity that are outright dishonest. Thus, I read many topics on this board in an attempt to see how the bible reconciles with how the world is, and if it comes to it, seek a personal relationship with God.

If what I said rings true with the word of God and the bible, there is no reason to be uncomfortable with me being an agnostic, or even getting the simple praise of an "amen" from a post. I am not a militant atheist looking for trouble, or attempting to stir up negative discourse. I'm an honest person that may very well be lead to Christ - my heart quite possibly is already there, my mind and pride may simply need to see what is already revealed to me.

[derrick09]

I see, I was mostly just voicing my displeasure with one of the "closed minded" believers here who for quite sometime is been trying to paint me as a lost person. He's starting to remind me of the anti-intellectual, hateful, Bible thumpers that inhabit the small Kentucky town that I live in. That if I don't think exactly like he does I'm not saved. Such character like that is very unkind and very unChrist like. And it's a shame that I'm surrounded by people such as that, but when you live in the heart of "answers in genesis yec country" that's what you expect.

[jlay]

Derrick, I can only infer your beliefs by what you communicate. I'm sorry if it offends you, but some of the things you post elicit these questions. I'm going to give you an example of why I am questioning you the way I am.

You say,

But even though God's existence, Christ resurrection, miracles and knowing 100% for sure that Christianity is true can't necessarily be known for sure (at least not right now or even in this lifetime) but based on the classical and most recent arguments and evidences, we can reasonably conclude that Christian Theism is most likely true. As in it has all the momentum on it's side as far as being proven true.

Let's see what scripture says,
"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Heb 11:1)
These things I have written to you who (W)believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have (X)eternal life. (1 John 5:13)

In your statement you said, "I guess most of you would agree." Obviously I would not agree. At least not in the context that you framed the statement. Maybe you meant that there is no way to know for sure as it relates to a certain area. If this is the case, then it would be most critical to be specific. Otherwise, I can only assume you mean in a general sense of "knowing."
The reason I gave Echo the amen, was I thought he pointed out something very obvious in your assessment. The fact that he is an unbeliever makes it all the more glaring too me.

Derrick, if you are going to be that sensative, then I suggest a rethink in posting your positions in the way that you are. They were most definately framed in a way, that said, "here's my opinion, tell me what you think." So, I commended Echo because I thought he was very astute to recognize where your hyposthesis did not line up with Christian teaching. And, I asked you some questions to get further clarification. To this point you have not clarified, but have decided to go off on me for questioning you. IIf you want to do that, fine. But I think the question was valid.

I'd like to add that your statement about Echo is a form of circumstantial ad-hominem. You are assuming that I 'have to' agree with you over echoside because he is an atheist. This is fallacious because it doesn't consider the validity of argument but the beliefs of source.

I see, I was mostly just voicing my displeasure with one of the "closed minded" believers here who for quite sometime is been trying to paint me as a lost person. He's starting to remind me of the anti-intellectual, hateful, Bible thumpers that inhabit the small Kentucky town that I live in. That if I don't think exactly like he does I'm not saved. Such character like that is very unkind and very unChrist like. And it's a shame that I'm surrounded by people such as that, but when you live in the heart of "answers in genesis yec country" that's what you expect.

I'd also like to point out just how replete your relpy is with logical fallacies. This statement is a blatant ad hominem attack. Not just against me, but also against AIG. This is an emotional diatribe. Something I am quite certain Christ never did.

[derrick09]

Well first off you have everything wrong about the context of my original post. I was referring to professional style philosophical debates on God's existence. When debating a atheist whether it be online or anywhere Because we can't get God to supernaturally appear right before the eyes of us and the atheists or produce any major miracles or supernatural signs to seal the fate of the atheist side the debate then becomes one that, is or should rather be about which side is most likely right and the way to do that is to examine the scientific, philosophical, and historical evidences. Not to mention, (and this goes for any follower of any religion) blindly stating or arrogantly pontificating that your religion's god teaches the "truth" without giving reasons why that is the case is clearly unproductive and stupid. And it doesn't get you anywhere in debates especially with atheists.

Because after all, according to how you view things, what's the difference between you and a mormon who aggregately pontificates that his religion and his book of mormon is "the truth" and because he has a deep emotional feeling in his stomach that is all the evidence that the unbeliever of mormonism needs to greatly consider mormonism? Quite frankly according to many of the posts of yours, your line of reasoning is the same with mormons!

How would a casual onlooker be able to decide between whether Christianity or mormonism is right if they have a run of the mill mormon arguing for mormonism based on dogma, blind cult like faith, and emotional feelings and a supposable "Christian" who argues for Christianity based on dogma, blind cult like faith, and emotional feelings? I mean, what would you do as the guy for Christianity if all you have to use against the mormon (or all that you want to use) is the same tactics the mormon uses???? What are you going to do??? Yell louder? Start calling him names??? I don't why you and others like you want to use this kind of method, because it draws more people away from Christianity than any other thing I know of.

Just like the pastors and congregations where I live, they all adhere to a blind cult like Christianity. And I know why the pastors do it, they do it to manipulate the congregation and certain individual people for various reasons i.e. the pastor's material gain, for sexual pleasures (if the pastor is trying to manipulate a female), to get the church to split. The reasons are endless. That's another reason why I've given up on attending a church in my area.

Those are just some of the reasons why for one it's a miracle that i"m not a atheist because of these experiences in church, but also it's because my faith is a reasonable, examined, and evidential faith and not one that resembles a jonestown cult. And because my faith is not one that resembles a jonestown cult, I'm deeply glad to say that I'm not a young earth creationist, especially a young earth creationist who likes to make up lies about me and paint me as something I"m not. And I"m equally as glad to be at a place like here, who's vast majority of members don't adhere to that ignorant and arrogant point of view.

[jlay]

Derrick, I understand that your question was framed in a way that was for the issue of debating Christian Theism. However, you did inject a personal statement in the OP. That being,

Which to me, especially in the last year or so thanks to the people here and elsewhere, I'm more confident than ever that Christian Theism is the way to go.

I took this statement to mean that you are a basing your faith to the preponderance of the evidence.
-In regards to the argument, I also do not agree with this method. Even though it is a popular method, I find it fails to do what one hopes it will accomplish. Now, this does not mean I am against evidence, reasons, etc. And I am quite sick of all the attempts to equate a disagreement with your positon as being an anti-intellectual cultist.

Quite frankly according to many of the posts of yours, your line of reasoning is the same with mormons!

Derrick, if it comes to me having to go through your post and point out where you are committing error, attack and fallacy, I will. I hope you understand the fallacious nature of this statement. If you'd like to provide some specific examples, as I am more than willing to undergo and internal critique. These type of things are nothing less than an emotional outburst and personal attack.

How would a casual onlooker be able to decide between whether Christianity or mormonism is right if they have a run of the mill mormon arguing for mormonism based on dogma, blind cult like faith, and emotional feelings and a supposable "Christian" who argues for Christianity based on dogma, blind cult like faith, and emotional feelings?

Since you are responding to me, I can only assume that you are accusing me of these things. Where did I suggest that the way to convince someone is to do it based on dogma, blind cult like faith or emotional feelings? Please be specific.

blindly stating or arrogantly pontificating that your religion's god teaches the "truth" without giving reasons why that is the case is clearly unproductive and stupid.

Again, it would appear that you are inferring that this is my position. Please give examples of how this is the case or stop insinuating these things.

Just like the pastors and congregations where I live, they all adhere to a blind cult like Christianity.

I live not too far from you, and actually do mission work in South East KY, (Middlesboro)with Mission of Hope. I have no question that there are those who are cult like. Just as there are everywhere. And I also have no doubt that your assesment is a careless generalization, as there are literally hundreds of churches in your area.

And because my faith is not one that resembles a jonestown cult, I'm deeply glad to say that I'm not a young earth creationist, especially a young earth creationist who likes to make up lies about me and paint me as something I"m not.

This is also a fallacious argument. You are attempting to say that the only way one can arrive at YEC, is to have a faith that resembles a Jonestown cult.
-If you have any specific examples where I have lied about you, please report this to a moderator as it is a violation of board rules. Derrick, it seems most clear that you are the one attempting to paint me as something I am not.

And I"m equally as glad to be at a place like here, who's vast majority of members don't adhere to that ignorant and arrogant point of view.

Another example of a baseless, fallacious attack, implying that I am ignorant and arrogant.

Derrick,
I have done my best to point out to you where I took exception to your findings. You essentially asked for response. Your latest responses are immature, filled with emotional rhetoric, and negative inferences about my character. Derrick, it is one thing to disagree, even heatedly. It is another to infer all the things you are in this thread. If this continues I will be reporting this to a moderator. If you want to come across as being scholarly in these dicussions, it is unwise to lash out in these ways.

[derrick09]

Well primarily I'm not happy with the fact that you like to demonize myself and other people here who are old earth creationists, or people who adhere to evidentialist apologetics, and basically use their brains instead of their hearts,emotions, blind faith, and dogma. Not only that, I"m still not happy with the fact that not too long ago you got up at whatever church you are at and used one of my thread postings as a classic example of a over intellectualized lost person. Now I know how Hugh Ross felt when Kent Hovind kept calling him a heretic during their big debate many years ago. If this is how most small town "believers" tend to treat people like myself, I'm much better off never attending a church as long as I live ever again. Since being away from church congregations and their hypocrisy , the little games they play, and their blind dogma style of "faith" I have got way more closer to God and have learned a whole lot more on my own than I ever would have cramped up in a pew somewhere. I still may have a lot of questions and not my relationship with God may not be 100%, but it is way better than it would be if I remained with the stupid, lying, hateful bunch of "believers" I was stuck to be around for many years. You want to see some specific examples of what I've had to deal with while at some of these so called "churches" just go here and read all about it.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 14&t=34960

[zoegirl]

Let's all take a breather here.

AS I read Derrick's comments, it simply talks about the strength of finding evidence to show non-believers, to avoid simply relying on emotional manipulation or dogma, without understanding the evidence behind the doctrine. If that is all we are using for convincing a non-believer, then we are being no different than a Mormon trying to use their dogma for their testimony.


What, specifically, Jlay, are you finding disagreement or wanting clarification about Derrick's position? (To help clear this up)

[jlay]

Well primarily I'm not happy with the fact that you like to demonize myself and other people here who are old earth creationists,

I haven't demonized anyone, and am quite tired of your rhetoric. I have pointed out, quite accurately I feel, the flaws in your position.

I"m still not happy with the fact that not too long ago you got up at whatever church you are at and used one of my thread postings as a classic example of a over intellectualized lost person.

So, by your own admission you are holding a grudge and venting in every other conversation you have with me? I used your post as an example against evidentialism. And I stand 100% behind my use of it, and my crtique of it.
By your own admission, in that thread, you said, "if the cosmological argument were disproved I would have to give up all forms of theism."
Now, I am know English major, but you are saying that your faith (which is a form of theism) hinges on the cosmological argument. That my friend is not saving faith. Now, does that mean you are not saved? No, but it certainly seems like a very good case to bring it into question. Granted, you may have mispoke, but you continued to speak at length in your OP about different reasons why you would give up faith. Now you seem all bent out of shape that someone has questioned you on it, and is challenging you. You are the one who introduced all these ideas about how you would abandon your faith. So, I find your reaction to my challenges a little odd.

What, specifically, Jlay, are you finding disagreement or wanting clarification about Derrick's position? (To help clear this up)

it simply talks about the strength of finding evidence to show non-believers, to avoid simply relying on emotional manipulation or dogma, without understanding the evidence behind the doctrine.

I didn't specifically disagree with reasoning for Christian theism. Zoe, as Derrick pointed out, this all goes back to another lead, which I have linked below. This thread is really just a continuation of the same thing, as you can see by the use of terms like "case for Christian Theism," that he also used in the OP of the other thread. So, please don't assume that my initial response was just to this paragraph. Derrick has made it pretty clear that he has some real issues with people back in his hometown, and with YECers in general. His post have been laced with vitriol against me, and those he doesn't agree with. This has been exampled repeatedly when he continues to insinuate that if you don't agree with his view of presenting Christian theism that you don't use evidence, are dogmatic, and emotionally manipulative. And I think I have been quite restrained in my responses. If you have read back through the thread you can see, and I restated in my last post, just what I was questioning. And since he asked for input, I obliged. I would disagree with his overall case for Christian theism, as I did in another thread. Which you can and should view here, http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =3&t=34928As this directly relates to his real issue he has with me.
I do not disagree with using evidence to support the Christian position. And although he has routinely accused me and lumped me in with all sorts, he has yet to respond to one challenge to provide any evidence of his claims. Since I have spent a good deal of time explaining myself and my reasons for disagreement, I don't really see any need to elaborate further. Derrick's responses are inflamatory, and lack merit in regards to what he is accusing.

Well primarily I'm not happy with the fact that you like to demonize myself and other people here who are old earth creationists, or people who adhere to evidentialist apologetics, and basically use their brains instead of their hearts,emotions, blind faith, and dogma. (Disagreeing, challenging, and debating are not demonizing. You are using faulty emotional appeals and inflamatory language, instead of facts.) Not only that, I"m still not happy with the fact that not too long ago you got up at whatever church you are at and used one of my thread postings as a classic example of a over intellectualized lost person. (I stated my reasons above. this is a grudge.)
Now I know how Hugh Ross felt when Kent Hovind kept calling him a heretic during their big debate many years ago. (Nothing personal, but you are no Hugh Ross. And thank the Lord, I am no Hovind.) If this is how most small town "believers" tend to treat people like myself, I'm much better off never attending a church as long as I live ever again. (This is another emotional appeal with no facts.) Since being away from church congregations and their hypocrisy , the little games they play, and their blind dogma style of "faith" I have got way more closer to God and have learned a whole lot more on my own than I ever would have cramped up in a pew somewhere. (I don't disagree with that. Most of my Christian study occus outside a church setting.) I still may have a lot of questions and not my relationship with God may not be 100%, but it is way better than it would be if I remained with the stupid, lying, hateful bunch of "believers" I was stuck to be around for many years. (Of course you will do better away from stupid, lying, hateful people. who wouldn't? However, I don't agree with your over generalizations.) You want to see some specific examples of what I've had to deal with while at some of these so called "churches" just go here and read all about it.
Sorry but your link doesn't work.

[derrick09]

Wait a minute! Don't accuse me of basing my entire faith on the big bang. It may be a crucial and major piece of evidence that intellectually supports my belief in a god and in Christian Theism, but it isn't the main part or the only part of my faith. You really have things twisted around. On my overall case for Christian Theism thread, I was referring to intellectual reinforcement of my belief. I wasn't saying that true believers base their entire faith on one or more evidences or arguments. You are confusing intellectual reinforcement with the faith believers have in Christ for their salvation. Now as far as that goes, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I have that saving faith in Christ. Man! The way you take people out of context is insane!

But it also looks like you want to debate me on evidential apologetics. Well I have a arguments and a case for that, but since dialoguing with you is worse than dialoguing with the worst militant atheist out there, I'm definitely going to decline. Besides if I did, I would continue to get the same kind of treatment that I have been getting from you. Not to mention I'll continue to be demonized, and called a heretic, a lost person, and who knows what else. I'm done dealing with you, you just come here and try to start trouble, you are not here to learn and grow like I am, you just want to put yourself above everyone here and call your views the only view on truth and give no supporting evidence for it.

So, let's make a deal here, if you don't respond to my future stuff and give me trouble on my threads that I put up with the intent of LEARNING and helping others here learn, then I won't respond to and give you trouble on your threads that you start. Does that sound good? But anyway if you have any other hateful things to say about me and my views don't expect me to respond anymore, I'll just let the mods deal with you.