AJ Phillips:

You’ve obviously got a lot of time on your hands.

<<Numerous atheist philosophers have pointed out how weak his arguments against God are (Ruse, for example)...>>

[Ruse’s main beef with Dawkins is that he thinks that Dawkins isn’t taking his opponents seriously enough. The irony here is that Ruse is making exactly the same mistake he accuses Dawkins of.]

This a quote from Ruse “Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing”.

Hence, we’re both right on that particular score.

<<...not to mention all the Christian ones who’ve done the same (Plantinga, Craig etc).>>

[Oh, such shining examples of intelligentsia.]

Indeed they are. Probably Plantinga especially, because he’s had some intriguing ideas and forced so many of his contemporaries to rethink their views on many topics. For example: His ideas about belief in God being basic, and his argument against naturalism.

[A classic example is the ‘Kalam Cosmological Argument’ that Craig uses...

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

We don’t know that the universe has a cause, particularly now that quantum physics is starting to challenge what we know about cause and effect.]

Quantum physics has not shown that something can come from nothing. Craig discusses this in great detail in his books and journal articles. Have you read them in any detail, or just the summary you’ve posted here?

<<The facts are very difficult to account for unless you entertain the possibility of divine intervention>>

[What facts? You haven’t given me any yet.]

<<The denial of Jesus existence is historically equivalent to a scientist arguing that the world is 6000 years old.>>

And yet you’re unable to provide any evidence at all. Just assertions.]

What is your definition of evidence? What type of evidence are you after?

continued:

Historical evidence can be found in the form of documents. In Jesus case, I refer to the four gospels, and references from Tacitus, Josephus and other sources.

Historical study of these documents yields that certain things are historically certain. But I’ve already explained all that- so what are you asking- are you asking me to explain the historical methodologies in more detail?

[Accountability is nothing when you think there is a reward of eternal bliss waiting at the end.

No one in their right mind would trade an eternity of bliss for 80 or so years for selfish pleasures.]

We’re talking accountability in the here and now versus unknown bliss at some future point. Besides, if people thought there was no reason to believe in the future bliss, why would they continue believing it?

[Making people feel like worthless wretches in need of grace is what Christianity relies on to keep its believers, because if you can convince someone that they need the religion for some reason or another, then you’ve created a dependence necessary for the religion to survive.]

We are most definitely beings in need of grace. There’s no doubt about that. One doesn’t need to live long to figure that one out.

The only remaining question is whether or not there’s actually a provider of that grace. Is our need for grace the result of “blind, pitiless indifference” as Dawkins suggests, or the result of our need for God, as the Christian tradition suggests?

Bushbasher.

[it makes perfect sense to say we KNOW these things are not true. it is not a matter of faith. it is a matter of not spending time considering ridiculous beliefs unless someone gives a compelling reason to do so. and you guys never do so.]

I find your views interesting for two reasons.

Firstly, atheists always complain that there are no compelling reasons to believe in God, but they rarely attempt to articulate what sort of evidence or reasons they'd EXPECT to see if a God DID exist. And the fact that they rarely articulate this makes me question whether they've even carefully reflected up on it.

Secondly, what are your reasons for believing that, say, miracles are ridiculous? Or that belief in God is ridiculous?

Trav, can you help please?

What was God doing for 4000 years allowing people to believe in a wide range of gods, and not Him?

What was the purpose of that exercise?

Where/how did it benefit the people who were here then?

And what about all the human sacrifice that has gone on in His name?

I don't understand how that all adds up to a 'good plan of action'.

It seems to be true, that God moves in mysterious ways, but there must come a point where He needs to make it all just a little bit clearer.

That might have been 2000 years ago, but why wait so long after Eden fell to pieces?

Surely, you do not believe in the literal reading of Eden, or do you?

And in fact, what about other believers here on this thread?

I think we need to clear the air a little here and those who are 'believers' should really say to what extent they accept the Bible as 'truth' and to what extent it is merely 'a guide'.

After all, Lonely Planet puts out very good 'guides' but are they really representing 'the truth' about the nation-state they describe?

And if you follow the LP book and delve nowhere else within that country, will you really be 'seeing' it properly?

Trav,

None of the gospels were written by authors that lived in Jesus' time, and generally several generations later.

There are no actual eye witness accounts of what happenned, only stories passed down, with the reliability of a 1000 man chinese whisper.

Considering the absolute levels of proof asked of evolution by the fundementalists, Christianity is on very shaky ground.

TBC:

What was God doing when he allowed X/Y/Z? There's plenty of crazy things that go on in the world. I don't necessarily see why you'd want to have an answer to questions like this before first confronting the question of God's existence and whethr Jesus has anything to offer. And once you've confronted those questions, secondary questions like this become of comparitively little importance.

Secondly, I personally don't feel that we'd necessarily be able to answer every single question like this in the case that God does exist.

Thirdly, if you dispute this, why? You're asking for answers to questions which effectively ask the Christian to map the mind of God's decisions. But why should a Christian be obliged or even necessarily be able to find an answer to every question? After all, there's plenty of questions the atheist has no answer for- for example, why matter is eternal or why matter came from nothingness? So I don't see why it's fair to hold theists to a much higher standard. If God does exist, there's most certainly a mysterious element to him.

Shadow:

[None of the gospels were written by authors that lived in Jesus' time, and generally several generations later.]

"Several" = stretch. Mark was most likely written around 70AD, although many scholars argue the 60's. 30-40 years. Paul wrote about Jesus 15 or 20 years after, using language which strongly suggests he heard about Jesus within 5 years or less of his alleged resurrection.

[with the reliability of a 1000 man chinese whisper.]

1. These stories were publicly read/taught. Chinese whispers is private. Instantly a bad analogy.

2. This was an oral culture, only 10% of people could read. Their memories were trained from a young age and thus 100 times more reliable in passing on information than ours today.

[Considering the absolute levels of proof asked of evolution by the fundementalists, Christianity is on very shaky ground]

In the sense of scientific evidence, I'd agree. Except I don't hold that God would reveal himself scientifically anyway, so the question is of little consequence to me.