(September 7, 2011 at 11:27 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: From your understanding is there some reason why a different or all religion/s cannot adopt this approach and thus demonstrate that all gods must exist and are responsible for logic etc? What's unique about the xtian trinity?

That is, in fact, a counter argument often put forward. Christian apologists dismiss that by discussing all the flaws with the other religion's source of revelation. Christians can pick apart problems with Islam, Hinduism, etc as well as any atheist. They just can't see the problems with their own.

In fairness, what Christianity does claim that sets it apart from some of the other major religions is that their god allegedly walked the earth with "multiple attestations" and "reliable eye-witness accounts" being included in their holy scriptures. Proving that their god did walk the earth or that their "reliable eye witnesses accounts" are either reliable or from eye-witnesses is another matter but they seem to take it as a given.

(September 7, 2011 at 11:49 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: In fairness, what Christianity does claim that sets it apart from some of the other major religions is that their god allegedly walked the earth with "multiple attestations" and "reliable eye-witness accounts" being included in their holy scriptures. Proving that their god did walk the earth or that their "reliable eye witnesses accounts" are either reliable or from eye-witnesses is another matter but they seem to take it as a given.

Part of the premise, remember..lol.

All joking aside, what you will sometimes see is the explanation that the premise is that "god has revealed himself to us" making no mention of what is actually contained within that revelation. They will then argue that they have checked their text for inconsistencies and none exist. Again, logical legerdemain in place of intellectual rigor.

Of course, there may well be a time when the bible has been sufficiently edited....I'm sorry, translated, as to remove any inconsistencies within itself or the known world. Even at this point I would be at a loss for reasons to accept this as evidence of god over evidence of editing.

(September 7, 2011 at 11:55 am)Rhythm Wrote: All joking aside, what you will sometimes see is the explanation that the premise is that "god has revealed himself to us" making no mention of what is actually contained within that revelation.

True, they really start to tap dance when you want to get into specifics on Yahweh's goodness when his "Word" weighs in on moral no-brainer issues like slavery, rape and genocide.

My back-handed compliment to Christianity, that it's wild claims are fairly unique and it presents a slick package cleverly constructed to con the unwary or the uneducated, is actually one of the advantages I think it has over Islam and some other religions.

As I've moved from scrutinizing the claims of Christianity to those of Islam, I've been impressed by how crude Islam seems to be in comparison. While Christianity puts together a package of faux history where mythology is blended in with relatively recent historical events along with multiple dubious eye-witness accounts, Islam relies entirely on the testimony of one man who claims to have spoken with God (and it goes downhill from there).

This is not to say that I consider Christianity more rational than Islam. It's to say they have a better marketing department.

They had to develop better marketing. Their enforcement dept lost most of it's oomph a couple hundred years back. Islam still has that going for it. Give them some time and we'll see how slick their presentation becomes, especially with a proof of concept in christianity to use as a model.

Fortunately, I think it's too late for them. Sure, they could forge some documents as Christianity did (see the TF of "Josephus"). Certainly they could "discover" pseudo-epigraphical attestations as was all the rage among theologians of the first few centuries AD. They might even take some pointers from the Pope as far as crafting "relics". However, that ship has already sailed. Christianity at least did all this legwork in ancient times. History is a lot harder to rewrite in the modern age.

(September 7, 2011 at 11:49 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: In fairness, what Christianity does claim that sets it apart from some of the other major religions is that their god allegedly walked the earth with "multiple attestations" and "reliable eye-witness accounts" being included in their holy scriptures. Proving that their god did walk the earth or that their "reliable eye witnesses accounts" are either reliable or from eye-witnesses is another matter but they seem to take it as a given.

Indeed it seems a pretty poor way to build the foundations of a philiosophy. I am an expat living in Bangalore, recently the very revered and celebrated South Indian guru, Sathya Sai Baba died here. He was a philanthropist of some note and no doubt accumulated his wealth from appearing in front of the poor and private audiences for the rich etc. He was an industry. The thing is he had 100s (I kid you not), of well attested and documented miracles, some recorded for the troops in front of hundreds of thousands of devotees. The devotees would swear that these were genuine miracles. He was revered as a demi god and did nothing to my knowledge to disavow this adoration. His claims would be more recent, better attested and more consistent than those of the Jesus character in the NT. Perhaps the Hindus can now try this approach?

(September 7, 2011 at 11:27 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote:

(September 7, 2011 at 11:15 am)Rhythm Wrote: It's a sort of TAG, read up on Cornelius Van Til, Calvinism, etc. The existence and truth of the biblical god (and specifically their interpretation of the biblical god) is taken as an axiom, terms are then defined in a favorable manner, a circle is drawn very tightly, and voila; a god is born. Nothing new.

From your understanding is there some reason why a different or all religion/s cannot adopt this approach and thus demonstrate that all gods must exist and are responsible for logic etc? What's unique about the xtian trinity?

Why are you asking Rhythm these things? He didn’t even know what presuppositional apologetics were until he looked it up on Wiki about three weeks ago.

It presents an internal critique of worldviews; the only worldview that can make sense of the preconditions of intelligibility is the Christian worldview, so it is deemed true through the process of negation (the impossibility of it not being true). The only other worldviews that can even come close are Islam, Mormonism and other perversions of the Judeo-Christian worldview. If you want to know why these worldviews fail we can certainly go into that. However, atheism is destroyed by the apologetic and so adhering to it is irrational.

Mormonism and Islam are runners up eh? An ecclectic mix of also rans.

(September 7, 2011 at 11:55 am)Rhythm Wrote: All joking aside, what you will sometimes see is the explanation that the premise is that "god has revealed himself to us" making no mention of what is actually contained within that revelation. They will then argue that they have checked their text for inconsistencies and none exist. Again, logical legerdemain in place of intellectual rigor.

I think you are using the word inconsistency incorrectly; scripture has no logical contradictions like Islam and Mormonism, that’s why it stands alone. Inconsistencies are often just the result of biblical ignorance or misreading and are easily harmonized by anyone who has a shred of exegetical ability.

Easily explained ad hoc, easily handwaved, easily translated away. Rgr. Even easily ignored.