tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post6769458511179421260..comments2023-03-05T09:03:32.659-05:00Comments on Failing The Insider Test: Divine Hiddenness: The Other Fine-Tuning ArgumentJeffrey Amoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11134064631280499241noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-4320871769285443222009-09-02T21:43:20.165-04:002009-09-02T21:43:20.165-04:00>You will perhaps understand why, to someone in...>You will perhaps understand why, to someone in my position, this admission seems like a very damaging concession that you are applying a double standard in your evaluation of Christianity.<br /><br />I don't see it as a double standard because there is a clear reason for the difference.<br /><br />If Jesus rose from the dead, that proves God exists and that dramatic demonstrations of his power are plausible. Is it plausible to conclude they must necessarily result? This depends on how one resolves some internal conflicts in the Bible. But is it plausible that miracles would, in fact, happen in our presence? Biblical miracles clearly say yes. <br /><br />If he didn't rise, the existence of God is in question and dramatic demonstrations of God's power are therefore less likely. Thus, the lack of these dramatic demonstrations are evidence against the resurrection. <br /><br />This argument repeats with numerous other topics from the lack of power of prayer, to the lack of good prophetic arguments. These arguments repeatedly do not work as evidence against other supernatural claims, except to the extent that these other supernatural claims are paired with similar claims about the here and now.<br /><br />And these aren't just arbitrarily chosen topics where evidence could occur and doesn't. They are places that I would expect evidence to occur given the Bible if I were given no other information about the world. <br /><br />The here and now looks vastly different from the world I would expect to find given only the Bible. These ways in which the world of the Bible differs from the world I find are relevant to the Resurrection.Jeffrey Amoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134064631280499241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-1912940724180622042009-08-30T18:47:43.786-04:002009-08-30T18:47:43.786-04:00Jeffrey,
One question I'm implicitly asking i...Jeffrey,<br /><br /><i>One question I'm implicitly asking is "if the Bible is true, how much evidence should be expected?" I conclude that it would reasonable to expect as much evidence as, say, the evidence that the Civil War happened, or maybe something even more in our face.</i><br /><br />What I'm challenging is the reasonableness of this conclusion. It seems to me to be based on a very dubious bit of theology and will therefore work only against a form of Christianity that endorses that bit of theology. While I would not presume to place limits on the theological folly of some Christians, I do not think that this bit has ever been endorsed by any thoughtful ones.<br /><br /><i>I don't just look at the historical evidence for the Resurrection just as I would be any other claim, or even any other historical claim about a religion-less supernatural occurrence.</i> <br /><br />You will perhaps understand why, to someone in my position, this admission seems like a very damaging concession that you are applying a double standard in your evaluation of Christianity. There are, of course, Christians who apply a double standard in the other direction. My contention is that both approaches are in error.<br /><br />"The entity connected to Jesus <i>wants to be known.</i>"<br /><br />Quite true. But if we can learn anything from the history of God's interactions with man, it it that He wants to be known <i>on His own terms.</i> It does not follow from anything in Scripture that He wants so desperately to be known that He is committed to doing <i>absolutely anything</i> to bang man over the head with evidence of His existence. That image of God is a straw man. It makes a convenient target for unbelievers to whack at, particularly if they can befuddle some Christians into thinking that they have to defend it. But that game has nothing to do with the serious consideration of the evidence for the truth of Christianity.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752886510692318211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-64283818351814586292009-08-30T12:28:18.545-04:002009-08-30T12:28:18.545-04:00One question I'm implicitly asking is "if...One question I'm implicitly asking is "if the Bible is true, how much evidence should be expected?" I conclude that it would reasonable to expect as much evidence as, say, the evidence that the Civil War happened, or maybe something even more in our face.<br /><br />How much evidence should be expected if a claim happens to be true is directly relevant to the question of how much evidence would be sufficient.<br /><br />I don't just look at the historical evidence for the Resurrection just as I would be any other claim, or even any other historical claim about a religion-less supernatural occurrence. The entity connected to Jesus <i>wants to be known</i>. This is a distinctly bolder claim than a mere claim about the supernatural, and consequently it makes sense to require more evidence.Jeffrey Amoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134064631280499241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-65170779289145303472009-08-29T23:41:33.798-04:002009-08-29T23:41:33.798-04:00Jeffrey,
If the evidence we do have for the truth...Jeffrey,<br /><br />If the evidence we do have for the truth of Christianity is insufficient to justify serious belief, then there would be no need for this post. If, on the other hand, it <i>is</i> sufficient, then there is no argumentative bite here. <br /><br />In other fields of inquiry, it is not acceptable to set aside adequate evidence on the ground that we can dream up other sorts of evidence that we do <i>not</i> have and then complain that we do not have them. It should not be acceptable in religion either.<br /><br />So this line of argument ultimately takes us nowhere. Everything depends on the more fundamental question of the adequacy of the evidence we do possess.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15786874834919065011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-57137818772324681282009-08-12T23:44:47.251-04:002009-08-12T23:44:47.251-04:00It's true that we might think that. That'...It's true that we might think that. That's also the case with many of the others: would it really convince me God was real?<br /><br />But for comparison, the Greeks gave us writings that are ahead of their contemporaries - while that doesn't make the Greeks divine, at least they stand out from their fellow mortals. If the Bible were a step above Greek writings, that still wouldn't convince me it was inspired. But that would prevent me from making a fine-tuning argument. <br /><br />But God didn't even provide enough scientific knowledge to block my argument against the Bible. This utter lack of <i>evidence</i>, more than merely the lack of <i>proof</i> of God, is the fine-tuning problem.Jeffrey Amoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134064631280499241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-41127844446990040122009-08-10T16:17:40.626-04:002009-08-10T16:17:40.626-04:00I didn't read the whole post, so maybe it'...I didn't read the whole post, so maybe it's not fair of me to comment, but I think if there were passages in the bible about modern science, then we would think that that had been known at the time or that it's just always been obvious, and so we wouldn't consider it modern science.Marlanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-51567321740612911932009-05-13T15:34:00.000-04:002009-05-13T15:34:00.000-04:00Exodus 20:21 And the people stood afar off, and M...<B>Exodus 20:21 </B> <I>And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was</I>.<br /><br />Is Your name Moses? :-)Luciannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-12238469314036615352009-05-11T23:29:00.000-04:002009-05-11T23:29:00.000-04:00I love NonStampCollector. My favorite of his is W...I love NonStampCollector. My favorite of his is <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmhFniUTQIE" REL="nofollow">What Would Yahweh Do?</A> where Jesus gives the Old Testament God a WWJD bracelet. <br /><br />(2:35) Ahh! My bowels have fallen out! (WoHaHa!) Oh my God, my bowels! (WoHaHa!) You made my bowels fall out! (WoHaHa!)Jeffrey Amoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134064631280499241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-957047376803795792009-05-09T10:26:00.000-04:002009-05-09T10:26:00.000-04:00Great post, great blog; I really enjoy reading it....Great post, great blog; I really enjoy reading it. <br /><br />There's a video on Youtube satirizing god's decision to not do anything that would be useful, or provide evidence of his existence.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOfjkl-3SNE&feature=channel_pageAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-38917558301887142462009-05-07T11:06:00.000-04:002009-05-07T11:06:00.000-04:00Super post. I have been thinking along similar lin...Super post. I have been thinking along similar lines, but never would be able to muster together the details you gathered either in my head or in writing.<br /><br />My basic tenet is that all of the alleged evidences for God are indistinguishable from what we would expect to see if God did not exist, from the details included in the bible to the way the bible itself was written. Not exactly encouraging for holding onto a conservative Christian faith...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com