Apple of Doubt

appleofdoubt.com – appleofdoubt.com/defining-belief

tmoadmin — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 04:19:13 +0000

Lee Strobel, of The Case for Christ infamy, was asked a series of questions by Hemant Mehta and his friendly band. He answered them in much the same fashion as anyone familiar with christain apologetics would expect, but then he turned the tables and presented the Friendly Atheist with six questions from other christian thinkers for atheists. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. In other words, if a boy steals a hundred dollars and a senator steal a hundred dollars then misfortune should befall them equally. Instead we see that there are those that can escape the consequences of their actions and obfuscate their wrongdoing. Maybe one day we will pierce the veil beyond the big bang and see what came before. However there is no point in trying to answer that mystery with another mystery. I think doubt keeps me sharp(er). It keeps me searching and asking questions. Since I dont believe we can say whether or not the universe is infinite I dont accept that the law of excluded middle applies. This argument misses two obvious replies. Theism is simply belief in a deity. Happy HuntingAs has been stated by others these questions are not the silver bullets that some seem to believe. They are not the best arguments against atheism or the questions most likely to plant the seeds of conversion in the godless. These are standard theist and christian points used universally from apologists on down to street preachers.

appleofdoubt.com – appleofdoubt.com/msnbcs-guide-to-the-tea-party-movement

tmoadmin — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 04:19:13 +0000

These minimal facts are strongly evidenced and are regarded as historical by the vast majority of scholars, including skeptics, who have written about the resurrection in French, German, and English since 1975. Virtually all scholars? Biblical scholars or historians? Instead of pointing out that the very existence of a historical Jesus is still controversial [1][2][3][4][5], pointing to degreed historians that reject these facts[6][7][8][9], or even make the obvious point that our only source of information on the witnesses to the resurrection are unreliable third hand hearsay[10][11][12][13][14] lets give Mr. Lets assume for the sake of argument alone that there lived a man named Jesus in roughly the same historical period as the biblical Jesus and that this man was crucified under roman law. In laboratories today we can induce religious experiences[15] by stimulating certain parts of the brain. Much like Constantines fortuitous conversion the timing and sincerity of Sauls religious experiences strike me as suspect. Another question down below brings up this ontological haunting so I will wait and provide my answer there. Argument from IncredulityFrank Pastore: Please explain how something can come from nothing, how life can come from non-life, how mind can come from brain, and how our moral senses developed from an amoral source.We dont know what came before the big bang. However there is no point in trying to answer that mystery with another mystery. How can mind come from brain? Well Im sure could spend quite a bit of time here arguing against dualism but instead I will just make two points. No doubt there are many philosophies that fall under theism which have such a belief but theism by itself has nothing to say on the concept.

appleofdoubt.com – appleofdoubt.com/?p=70

tmoadmin — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 04:19:13 +0000

Habermas the benefit of the doubt. Alright. Not only self-deception of a fringe religious group who just lost their leader but malicious deception. In the end the best answer to this question is the words of David Hume, When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. So lets look instead at this moral plan. Second, if not the brain then where does the mind come from? The author would probably say a soul. As I said above we dont know how the big bang came about. The Argument from ReasonAlvin Plantiga/William Lane Craig: If our cognitive faculties were selected for survival, not for truth, then how can we have any confidence, for example, that our beliefs about the reality of physical objects are true or that naturalism itself is true? (By contrast, theism says God has designed our cognitive faculties in such a way that, when functioning properly in an appropriate environment, they deliver true beliefs about the world.)This argument is actually Strobel summing up an argument from Alvin Plantinga using the wording of William Lane Craig so the exact attribution of this argument is murky. This argument misses two obvious replies. If our senses were totally incapable of perceiving the truth then we wouldnt be able to survive. And whats even more interesting is that these questions and many of my replies are boilerplate material. There are those that do this now which not only force us non-believers to think harder on our positions but move the debate away from the pablum.

appleofdoubt.com – appleofdoubt.com/the-ouroboros-elsewhere

tmoadmin — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 04:19:13 +0000

1. I concede nothing here but instead assume these facts purely for the sake of argument. In laboratories today we can induce religious experiences[15] by stimulating certain parts of the brain. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. Another question down below brings up this ontological haunting so I will wait and provide my answer there. Instead we see that there are those that can escape the consequences of their actions and obfuscate their wrongdoing. If there was a moral plan in place the innocent wouldnt suffer needlessly and the evil couldnt prosper from their misdeeds. Its like saying, I know you believe that god has no hand in dishing out punishment and reward, but what if he does?. Show me where the brains functions end and the souls begin. I think doubt keeps me sharp(er). The Argument from ReasonAlvin Plantiga/William Lane Craig: If our cognitive faculties were selected for survival, not for truth, then how can we have any confidence, for example, that our beliefs about the reality of physical objects are true or that naturalism itself is true? (By contrast, theism says God has designed our cognitive faculties in such a way that, when functioning properly in an appropriate environment, they deliver true beliefs about the world.)This argument is actually Strobel summing up an argument from Alvin Plantinga using the wording of William Lane Craig so the exact attribution of this argument is murky. Theism is simply belief in a deity. Its much like how the term atheism is linked to naturalism when the atheism is simply disbelief and does not necessarily imply any other philosophical stance.

appleofdoubt.com – appleofdoubt.com/a-few-thoughts-on-becks-9-principles

tmoadmin — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 04:19:13 +0000

Our modern biblical canons New Testament is filled with writings attributed to and written by him. The Argument from DesignPaul Copan: Given the commonly recognized and scientifically supported belief that the universe (all matter, energy, space, time) began to exist a finite time ago and that the universe is remarkably finely tuned for life, does this not (strongly) suggest that the universe is ontologically haunted and that this fact should require further exploration, given the metaphysically staggering implications?And, second, granted that the major objection to belief in God is the problem of evil, does the concept of evil itself not suggest a standard of goodness or a design plan from which things deviate, so that if things ought to be a certain way (rather than just happening to be the way they are in nature), dont such injustices or evils seem to suggest a moral/design plan independent of nature?Lets ignore the argument from fine tuning, thats puddle thinking and has been given a thorough going over by people with far better math skills than I [16][17][18][19]. Im sure the author of the question has specific problems with abiogenesis, but it makes you wonder why he doesnt just argue those instead of asking something with such an obvious reply. Theres scientific speculation that the universe may well be infinite (only one specific reading of the second law says otherwise), that because all elements move from a less stable to more stable states existence is more stable than non-existence, the possibility of the big crunch, multiverse theory, quantum level creations of matter, and so many others. The most reasonable alternative of all these options however, is doubt. It says absolutely nothing about our senses or ability to develop true beliefs.

appleofdoubt.com – appleofdoubt.com/?p=39

tmoadmin — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 04:19:13 +0000

Virtually all scholars? Biblical scholars or historians? Instead of pointing out that the very existence of a historical Jesus is still controversial [1][2][3][4][5], pointing to degreed historians that reject these facts[6][7][8][9], or even make the obvious point that our only source of information on the witnesses to the resurrection are unreliable third hand hearsay[10][11][12][13][14] lets give Mr. With those facts we can easily provide several naturalist explanations. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. So lets look instead at this moral plan. If there was a moral plan in place the innocent wouldnt suffer needlessly and the evil couldnt prosper from their misdeeds. So it seems to me that the type and number of evils in the world point toward a universe with no supernatural or metaphysical arbiter of right and wrong. I also think that many atheists confuse evolutionarily produced emotions like empathy and sympathy with morality. If we take this moral sense to be sympathy and empathy then there is a whole host of research showing that these senses are a result of evolution and we can see these in the animal kingdom amongst higher mammals and a few others. Do you ever doubt your atheism and, if so, what is it about theism or Christianity that is most troubling to your atheism?I do doubt. 6. Im far from innocent of this arguments error but something it causes a great deal of consternation when an argument simply ignores or misses an obvious response. Happy HuntingAs has been stated by others these questions are not the silver bullets that some seem to believe.

appleofdoubt.com – appleofdoubt.com/?p=68

tmoadmin — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 04:19:13 +0000

Will these answers change the arguments made by the likes of Strobel? Or be more insightful and inspiring that those of Greta and Ebon? No, I dont expect them to, thus the name of the post. Our modern biblical canons New Testament is filled with writings attributed to and written by him. In the end the best answer to this question is the words of David Hume, When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. We are finite creatures with finite technical ability. How can mind come from brain? Well Im sure could spend quite a bit of time here arguing against dualism but instead I will just make two points. Show me evidence of the soul. Atheist DoubtMike Licona: Irrespective of ones worldview, many experience periods of doubt. Doubt keeps me from dismissing good arguments for a deity out of hand. Why?This ontological haunting that was brought up earlier. Finding gaps in our knowledge and shoving god in them is not the answer however. One is that our senses compliance with the real world can be tested against the readings of machines. Unless you advocate solipsism there you must believe that the truth can be determined and if it can be then our senses can be compared to that truth. No doubt there are many philosophies that fall under theism which have such a belief but theism by itself has nothing to say on the concept.

appleofdoubt.com – appleofdoubt.com/?p=122

tmoadmin — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 04:19:13 +0000

He answered them in much the same fashion as anyone familiar with christain apologetics would expect, but then he turned the tables and presented the Friendly Atheist with six questions from other christian thinkers for atheists. There is simply no reason for me to accept that eyewitness testimony of a stranger at face value, much less when they are making such outlandish claims with no corroborating evidence. Some authors have even pointed out doctrinal differences in the approach and writings of other apostle and Saul [16]. Another question down below brings up this ontological haunting so I will wait and provide my answer there. So it seems to me that the type and number of evils in the world point toward a universe with no supernatural or metaphysical arbiter of right and wrong. Of course that is the problem of evil, so one wonders why Copan would even bring it up as an objection. Or maybe we will witness another big bang creating another universe. Show me where the brains functions end and the souls begin. However without knowing exactly what is meant here by moral sense I cannot really comment further. 4. I think doubt keeps me sharp(er). Doubt keeps me from dismissing good arguments for a deity out of hand. Why?This ontological haunting that was brought up earlier. The limitations are well understood and the initial reasoning behind them is sound. No doubt there are many philosophies that fall under theism which have such a belief but theism by itself has nothing to say on the concept. They are not the best arguments against atheism or the questions most likely to plant the seeds of conversion in the godless.

appleofdoubt.com – appleofdoubt.com/im-at-the-112th-carnival-of-the-godless

tmoadmin — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 04:19:13 +0000

Each of these topics is deserving of a post in and of itself so please excuse me if my answers appear rushed and if I link heavily. 1. Of course that is the problem of evil, so one wonders why Copan would even bring it up as an objection. Its not an argument at all. 3. Or maybe we will witness another big bang creating another universe. Im sure the author of the question has specific problems with abiogenesis, but it makes you wonder why he doesnt just argue those instead of asking something with such an obvious reply. How can mind come from brain? Well Im sure could spend quite a bit of time here arguing against dualism but instead I will just make two points. Second, if not the brain then where does the mind come from? The author would probably say a soul. Either everything came from something outside the material universe, or everything came from nothing (Law of Excluded Middle). Which of those two is the most reasonable alternative? As an atheist, you seem to have opted for the latter. We dont know and we may never know. Im far from innocent of this arguments error but something it causes a great deal of consternation when an argument simply ignores or misses an obvious response. Not to mention the most obvious response, the truth is imminently useful for survival. And whats even more interesting is that these questions and many of my replies are boilerplate material. No serious discussion took place here, just the retreading of old ground. There are those that do this now which not only force us non-believers to think harder on our positions but move the debate away from the pablum.

appleofdoubt.com – appleofdoubt.com/mob-rule

tmoadmin — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 04:19:13 +0000

These minimal facts are strongly evidenced and are regarded as historical by the vast majority of scholars, including skeptics, who have written about the resurrection in French, German, and English since 1975. With those facts we can easily provide several naturalist explanations. In laboratories today we can induce religious experiences[15] by stimulating certain parts of the brain. There is simply no reason for me to accept that eyewitness testimony of a stranger at face value, much less when they are making such outlandish claims with no corroborating evidence. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. Im sure the author of the question has specific problems with abiogenesis, but it makes you wonder why he doesnt just argue those instead of asking something with such an obvious reply. Show me evidence of the soul. Since I dont believe we can say whether or not the universe is infinite I dont accept that the law of excluded middle applies. The most reasonable alternative of all these options however, is doubt. We have very little information to go on about the origins of existence, or whether existence requires an origin, so all we can do is begin weeding out theories that dont work and look for more information. Unless you advocate solipsism there you must believe that the truth can be determined and if it can be then our senses can be compared to that truth. Not to mention the most obvious response, the truth is imminently useful for survival. Its much like how the term atheism is linked to naturalism when the atheism is simply disbelief and does not necessarily imply any other philosophical stance.