RE: Atheists:Can you disprove the resurrection or Jesus' existence?
September 4, 2011 at 4:35 pm
(September 4, 2011 at 4:27 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: The arguments for xtianity have been refuted time and time again. If you are convinced by these refutations then xtianity is debunked, if not then it isn't. Speaking personally I am. The arguments for atheism have in turn been refuted by xtian theists, if you are unconvinced by these refutations then xtianity is debunked. Again I am.
A very nice summary. I like thinking about where the different positions draw their lines, always informative.
(September 4, 2011 at 4:27 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Plantingas FWD distilled down says it isn't logically impossible if god has a reason to allow evil. This argument has been refuted by Ray Bradley, amongst others. But notwithstanding that it says nothing about William Rowes inductive problem of evil. The world is much more consistent without there being a loving diety than with one, and whilst it may be logically possible that doesn't mean it is in the slightest bit convincing. In fact imo a more convincing case can be made logically for an all evil diety allowing us to do good things but willing us to be evil. But of course this is never put forward as it's not the xtian concept.
Oh for sure people have long since countered Plantiga, but the classic proof as stated above was abandoned. If you look at the refutations of Plantiga they all change track to a more postmodern direction. I hope I didn't make it sound like Plantiga won the debate once and for all, I was just noting that there are key works that take the debate in a new direction.
(September 4, 2011 at 4:27 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Yep and in my opinion that wrong, but then this of course subject to our own bias.
Oh, for sure I am biased. It's just been a hobby of mine to think about if the apologetic debate between Christianity and atheism was being scored like a debate in debate club, who would be in the lead. I actually think that a lot of the arguments the atheists were making towards the end of the modernist era were way better than the Christian ones, but the trend reversed as of late. (Of course this is just one judge on the panel, many people may see it differently.) That being said, if you look at a Sam Harris debate, he usually beats his Christian opponent. It's all just for fun really, because regardless of how much progress either side makes it's not like the arguments will get so good the other side will close up shop. Just a hobby of mine.
