Jeffonthenet argues that there is no inconsistency between believing in the God of Jesus Christ and acting rationally in holding that belief. On the contrary, belief in God is the source of plenty of irrational actions. Many reject commonly known facts because they conflict with such beliefs (I'll go for an easy one: evolution), all without any basis other than their religion. This is a rather irrational practice. He also contends that there is no successful argument against the God of Jesus Christ. Just for starters:
1. There is not one shred of admissible evidence for this god's existence.
2. There have been many gods/goddesses worshipped by man throughout history which contradict and conflict with this god. There is no more reason to believe this god to be true than any other.
3. Much of what has been attributed to this god (creation) has been found to have come about in other ways (evolution, abiogenesis [for which there is evidence], the Big Bang). Intelligent Design is not a compromise between these, it is just creationism in a lab coat.
These just scratch the surface.
Jeffonthenet brings up an analogy of feeding a stray cat. A stray cat, however, is a rather likely occurrence, and it's one which can probably be verified with proper investigation. Conversely, it is still also possible that this cat was in fact a delusion, or perhaps something other than it was perceived to be. Most importantly, a stray cat is a physical, external thing, where as a religious experience is internal. The difference must be noted.
Jeffonthenet is somewhat right on one thing; this god is not necessarily dependent on biblical inerrancy. Historical errors in certain places (albeit a great deal of places, but it's a big book) do not mean the entire thing is automatically null and void. They do, however, damage the overall credibility and integrity of the thing, and thus the bible cannot be taken as a reliable source and it should be critically dissected.
I never said that this god was too small to be real. Rather, I said that this god is too small to be probable. The point here, which perhaps was missed by Jeffonthenet, is that there is no more reason to believe this god is real than any other. As much as we cannot suppose that "the Christian God was not active in the world simply because he didn't fully reveal himself until later times", we also cannot suppose that he was active. As far as the records go, the odds are not in this god's favor. Archaeological finds may suggest that pre-historic men believed in an afterlife, but that proves nothing about this god specifically, just that religion-like beliefs may have existed at that time.
The gods and goddesses worshipped by past civilizations were likely "experienced" much in the same way one "experiences" the god of Jesus Christ. They inspired countless monuments, documents, works of art, works of literature, etc. as well as devout ritual. The main reason the ancient Greeks can't claim to experience Zeus is because the civilization no longer exists. Had that civilization made it to the present day, Jeffonthenet would perhaps be "experiencing" their gods and goddesses instead of that of Jesus Christ. Just a thought.
The abused child argument was certainly out of place. Jeffonthenet seems to suggest we should take things on circumstantial evidence alone. Courts of law pursue trials with rationality. Whatever court you decide we're in, it's not rational to take something as truth on just a bit of circumstantial evidence. And I stand by my assertion of appeal to emotion, in fact I would cite "if this were the case, and we used the logic Knockemoutt proposed, we must then declare every victim of a crime irrational who cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their attacker was so-and-so" as a further appeal to emotion. That said, in this scenario it is not the accuser who would be irrational. The irrationality would lie with those who believe the accusations without anything other than personal testimony.
My issue with Jeffonthenet's arguments is that he's done nothing other than try to refute all arguments against his stance without really providing any reasons why belief in the Christian god is anything other than irrational, aside from saying that the bible says Christianity will seem irrational which is both A) begging the question and B) doesn't show at all how belief in this god is not irrational.
What I've mainly gathered from Jeffonthenet's arguments and closing statement is that he's trying to defend the argument from personal incredulity; that we should accept an explanation of an experience even though there is no evidence that this is true and there may be a more reasonable explanation. This as we all know is a logical fallacy, and therefore irrational.
I thank Jeffonthenet for his time and hope that anyone who stopped to look at this debate found it an interesting read.
1. There is not one shred of admissible evidence for this god's existence.
2. There have been many gods/goddesses worshipped by man throughout history which contradict and conflict with this god. There is no more reason to believe this god to be true than any other.
3. Much of what has been attributed to this god (creation) has been found to have come about in other ways (evolution, abiogenesis [for which there is evidence], the Big Bang). Intelligent Design is not a compromise between these, it is just creationism in a lab coat.
These just scratch the surface.
Jeffonthenet brings up an analogy of feeding a stray cat. A stray cat, however, is a rather likely occurrence, and it's one which can probably be verified with proper investigation. Conversely, it is still also possible that this cat was in fact a delusion, or perhaps something other than it was perceived to be. Most importantly, a stray cat is a physical, external thing, where as a religious experience is internal. The difference must be noted.
Jeffonthenet is somewhat right on one thing; this god is not necessarily dependent on biblical inerrancy. Historical errors in certain places (albeit a great deal of places, but it's a big book) do not mean the entire thing is automatically null and void. They do, however, damage the overall credibility and integrity of the thing, and thus the bible cannot be taken as a reliable source and it should be critically dissected.
I never said that this god was too small to be real. Rather, I said that this god is too small to be probable. The point here, which perhaps was missed by Jeffonthenet, is that there is no more reason to believe this god is real than any other. As much as we cannot suppose that "the Christian God was not active in the world simply because he didn't fully reveal himself until later times", we also cannot suppose that he was active. As far as the records go, the odds are not in this god's favor. Archaeological finds may suggest that pre-historic men believed in an afterlife, but that proves nothing about this god specifically, just that religion-like beliefs may have existed at that time.
The gods and goddesses worshipped by past civilizations were likely "experienced" much in the same way one "experiences" the god of Jesus Christ. They inspired countless monuments, documents, works of art, works of literature, etc. as well as devout ritual. The main reason the ancient Greeks can't claim to experience Zeus is because the civilization no longer exists. Had that civilization made it to the present day, Jeffonthenet would perhaps be "experiencing" their gods and goddesses instead of that of Jesus Christ. Just a thought.
The abused child argument was certainly out of place. Jeffonthenet seems to suggest we should take things on circumstantial evidence alone. Courts of law pursue trials with rationality. Whatever court you decide we're in, it's not rational to take something as truth on just a bit of circumstantial evidence. And I stand by my assertion of appeal to emotion, in fact I would cite "if this were the case, and we used the logic Knockemoutt proposed, we must then declare every victim of a crime irrational who cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their attacker was so-and-so" as a further appeal to emotion. That said, in this scenario it is not the accuser who would be irrational. The irrationality would lie with those who believe the accusations without anything other than personal testimony.
My issue with Jeffonthenet's arguments is that he's done nothing other than try to refute all arguments against his stance without really providing any reasons why belief in the Christian god is anything other than irrational, aside from saying that the bible says Christianity will seem irrational which is both A) begging the question and B) doesn't show at all how belief in this god is not irrational.
What I've mainly gathered from Jeffonthenet's arguments and closing statement is that he's trying to defend the argument from personal incredulity; that we should accept an explanation of an experience even though there is no evidence that this is true and there may be a more reasonable explanation. This as we all know is a logical fallacy, and therefore irrational.
I thank Jeffonthenet for his time and hope that anyone who stopped to look at this debate found it an interesting read.
You really believe in a man who has helped to save the world twice, with the power to change his physical appearance? An alien who travels though time and space--in a police box?!? ![[Image: TARDIS.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.smileyvault.com%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F11195%2FTARDIS.gif)
