The pre-failure of apologetic arguments

[DeistPaladin]

Hmm. Granted that there have been discoveries of counter-intuitive phenomena, does it follow that in general we should not trust our intuitions about what appears to us to be true? ...Scientific enquiry gets no special status in this regard. If we are going to, in general, doubt what appears to be the case, we must also doubt what scientific enquiry appears to tell us.

OK, apparently I wasn't clear enough. Nowhere in my argument did I intend to suggest that nothing in the universe is as it seems.

What I've repeatedly said is that philosophical arguments alone are not sufficient to meet the burden of proof demanded by Christianity's claims and so apologetics, since it can only offer philosophical arguments, pre-fails.

So it appears to be the case, at least given our experience of the world and our thinking about other possible worlds. That makes it more than a speculation. It doesn't mean it is an infallible intuition, or an entirely established fact about the universe, but it is plausible, more so than its negation.

...and, even if your arguments were sound, you've still failed to meet the burden of proof established by the extraordinary nature of Christianity's claims.

To be honest, I have always found ECREE to be a rather extraordinary epistemological claim that I have never seen any extraordinary evidence for. It requires the dubious view that ordinariness is somehow a normative property, when it seems plain that ordinariness is an entirely subjective notion.

...and this is the point where I accuse you of sophistry and special pleading.

If I were to tell you that I had lunch with a local friend today, you'd probably accept that claim with no evidence.

If I were to tell you I had lunch with President Obama today, you'd probably be skeptical and want to see evidence.

If I were to tell you I had lunch with my father today, a man who's been deceased for eight years, you'd probably call the local mental institute unless I could immediately produce overwhelming evidence.

Now, if my speculations about your reactions to any of the above are wrong, that you would ask me how my father was or what Obama had to say instead of asking for evidence, please correct me. Otherwise, you operate by the same rules I do and only suspend them to protect your cherished beliefs.

It takes quite a high degree of cultural snobbery to claim that modern Western societies have finally got the right perspective on the claim that God exists (and on whether miracles are possible).

I would say "consistency" and not "snobbery". Again, we operate by the same rules until your favorite god is invoked.

I cannot speak for Islam (indeed I would speak against it, rationally speaking),

Just to be clear, I often say "Islamo-Christianity" because they share more similarities than differences. While it may seem crazy to you as a Christian, you should know that the earliest versions of Christianity were far more dissimilar than modern Trinitarian beliefs and Islam.

For example, the Marcionites believed there were two gods. The Docetics believed that Jesus was not a physical being. The Ebionites said that Jesus was the son of Mary and Joseph, conceived as all babies are. The Arians (no relation to the 20th century white supremists) thought that Jesus was an angel sent down from Heaven. All of these sects once labeled themselves as "Christian".

By contrast, modern Christians and Muslims agree that Jesus was born of a virgin, that there is one god, that Jesus was a physical being and that he had a childhood on this earth.

but as a Christian the key question is about the Resurrection of Jesus. It is the test of historical enquiry that it has to pass, and the test that the New Testament writers encourage us to examine. I think that it does pass that test; obviously you don't, and that's a discussion for another time.

*Ahem* Yes, that's for another thread.

As for philosophical arguments being mere 'mental constructs', if that is your indictment against arguments for theism, it is also an indictment on our whole conversation, which is a whole string of arguments, both explicit and implicit.

I'm asking "is this all you can offer?"

If the answer is "yes, I'm afraid so", then you've failed to meet the burden of proof no matter you sound your arguments are.

Oh, and the arguments are crap but that's another thread.

The arguments from the Enlightenment, from which we get our cosy secularity, are pertinent examples of that, as are many of the theistic arguments that have influenced Western thought for centuries.

The Enlightenment didn't happen because of Christianity. The Enlightenment happened in spite of Christianity. But this too is another topic for another thread.

---

I understood your point, and it is fallacious. Which you apparently realized, because you've abandoned one of your original premises of dismissing philosophical arguments based on the observation that "universe is not under any obligation to conform to our concepts of what makes sense".

When did I abandon this?

God provides extraordinary evidence, which He did by raising His Son from the dead.

Are you for real? You have to be a Poe. Nobody can possibly be this much of a blithering fucktard and still know how to use a computer.