Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Wagner
Very good, Troy, you took a stab at answering my five questions. See, that's all it took to be allowed back here. Thanks for finally addressing some points put to you instead of repeating your previous sermons. Now, let's have a look at your answers and see how they satisfy:
1) You can disprove God of the Bible by finding a naturalistic explanataion for the origin of the disciples. None exist of course.
Excuse me? This is strange, but... the origin of the disciples? You're preferring to the dozen guys in Jesus's posse? That's all it takes to disprove the God of the Bible?
Okay, Troy, I'll take you at your word on that. I suspect that, like any other human beings, they had one male parent and one female parent each, who engaged in sexual relations, resulting nine months afterward in the birth of the baby who would grow up to become a disciple.
As this would appear to be a perfectly acceptable natural explanation for the origin of the Bible, then by your own criteria, I guess we can consider the God of the Bible disproved.
So, I think we're done here. Still, I'll go ahead and take a look at your other four answers to see if you get any extra credit.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding. The origin of the disciples' beliefs was as to regard their testimony, what made them think they had seen Jesus alive from the dead? Since you are unable to come up with a naturalistic explanation as all possibilities have been exhausted, you are as well admitting Jesus is God.
Quote:
2) There is no realm, there is just the uncreated Creator outside of time and space. You don't need an explanation of the explanation.
Well, yes Troy, we do. You see, that is how things are done in science. You may get an explanation of a certain phenomenon, but if the explanation itself raises questions, then you investigate it further to increase your knowledge. This is why the scientific method is a rational process and religious belief is an irrational one: science encourages the constant increase in knowledge, while religion seeks to shut knowledge down by saying "You don't need to know that."
You have now proposed a God who lives outside of time and space, but who does not do so in any kind of realm (like an alternate universe of his own or anything). So now you have to explain, again, the nature of this being and how it can exist without a realm to exist in, and how it is possible to determine that this is actually a fact that can be known and not simply something you are making up. So far you are still not explaining how to distinguish that God exists in reality and not simply in your imagination. If you're still confused as to what I mean, then here's an example. Explain how there is any epistemological difference between the following sentences:
"There is no realm, there is just the uncreated Creator outside of time and space."
"There is no realm, there is just the lord Vishnu, in the great emptiness outside time and space."
Perhaps you are misunderstanding again. I am not saying you don't need to know something, but rather, once the proof has been given that proves the existence of something, you don't need further explanation once you know it is true. You can keep asking questions, sure, but those questions do not infringe on what we know, that the uncreated Creator exists. You don't need to know, say, if God is a Quaternity or a Trinity to know He exists.
I'll repeat the proof again. Since nature can't always have existed, then nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. This timeless, spaceless (so no domain) cause is whom we call God. It is fully proven. Why keep avoiding this proof?
Vishnu does not specify whether he is created or uncreated, nor does it say whether he created or didn't create. Let's use English. So what we have is the uncreated Creator. Start from there, then find out if Vishnu compares to Jesus. Elementary dear Watson.
Quote:
3) Why would He be caught in your infinite regress trap since He is outside of time?
Okay, this is not an answer, this is a dodge. The question was, if time and space do not apply to God, then why would this God engage in a causal act such as creation in order to establish a temporal universe? This is not me setting an infinite regress trap, it is me pointing out the infinite regress trap you have set for your God by not noticing this little inconsistency in the mythology you're trying to sell.
This is not a dodge. That which is outside of time is not subject to your infinite regress trap. Actually you don't even need to know the reason why He did it, since it is proven He did it. But to answer your question why He did it, it's clear through Jesus why He did it, because God is relational being a Trinity, and He surrounds Himself with His glory, creating this universe, to have fellowship with those He chose before the foundations of the world.
What the Holy Spirit is revealing to me about you is that you have an idol called science rather than using science properly. Science proves things. It is not to be used to avoid things, such as once you know something is true, you don't then seek to disprove it, for it is proven. I guess academically you could try to throw around some attempted disproves, but it is still proven to be true. The Bible addresses this problem you have,
'Avoid profane vain babblings, and oppositions of science so falsely called' (1 Tim. 6.20).
Since Jesus was a real person, no mythology. You never mentioned any inconsistency. All you did was ask why would God create, and I told you. You still suffer from the infinite regress problem. It gets worse for you, for you know about Hilbert's Paradoxical Hotel. And if there was an infinite regress, there would be an eternity going on for eternity before ever reaching you, so you would have never come into being. Infinite regress is riff with contradictions. It shows you would not exist or would have happened already. That's crazy. You want people to believe in this nonsensical mythology? Thank God, God is not subject to this lunacy, since He is outside of time and space, and He has a will and prerogative to create. There could be someone at the year 13.7 billion years, another person at the year 100 billion years, and yet another person at the 1 trillion year mark. They could say they are at these marks in time according to God's prerogative and free will, but you can't say these things in your fantasy of infinite regress.
Quote:
4) The proof already supplied this to you, by the proof of the resurrection. Why be a clanging bell?
The resurrection is not proved. There are only four accounts in a holy book, each of which conflicts in significant ways with the others. You don't seem to have gotten past the realization that you can't use the Bible's supernatural claims to prove themselves.
Of course you can use the Bible, for these are their testimonies they said they saw Jesus alive after He died on the cross. We have a total of 27 books for the contemporary times. They do not conflict, you could find no conflict with them, so what have you got, but conjecture? Even if they did conflict a little here or a little there, it imposes no problem for their testimony they had seen Jesus alive from the dead. Because you can find no naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples beliefs, you prove God exists and Jesus is God. Praise the Lord! I don't know any historians who throw out the text completely like you do, so obviously you are the fringe. I was thinking of watching all 3 seasons of the Fringe. Take out your bias and come back to the table.
Quote:
5) By the evidence given, nature cannot always have existed so there needs be the timeless and spaceless Creator and by the proof of the resurrection of Jesus.
But as has already been pointed out to you countless times on this thread, this is simply a bit of inductive reasoning you've been doing based on inaccurate premises. Still, even if we were to accept the premise that "nature cannot always have existed," it does not necessarily follow that the explanation has to be the Biblical God more than any other deity.
There are no premises and the logic is valid. Just letting the evidence lead us where it may. We observe trillions and trillions of causes in nature, an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, so we can be confident nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. This is whom we call God.
Now that we know the uncreated Creator is true, we can compare for any claims on the uncreated Creator. We know God reveals Himself since a personal God is better than an absentee landlord, for how can God's standards be less than our own? Since none can compare to Christ, we know the Christian God is the correct one. You testify this too yourself, since you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. No other religion has such powerful proof. No other religion has a person who walks on earth with us, like Jesus did with the disciples for three years, and continually claim He is God.
Quote:
So yeah, it looks like you're still badly stuck on some epistemological basics. But at least you gave it a good try, I'll credit you that.
Sorry, I have no epistemological problems. I am glad you couldn't show any but could only vaguely assert it. Thanks for your commendations. My prayer is that you confront this in a more honest fashion.