Hi Steve. I tried to get through the article by Myers, but I must admit it was difficult to know exactly what he was attacking with all of the ill conceived slander and personal attacks. I have never seen such disrespect from someone who is considered a professional. Even worse was the following comments. I will admit that I am not a scholar and certainly not an expert on Alvin Plantinga's works. ...more

Hi Steve. I tried to get through the article by Myers, but I must admit it was difficult to know exactly what he was attacking with all of the ill conceived slander and personal attacks. I have never seen such disrespect from someone who is considered a professional. Even worse was the following comments. I will admit that I am not a scholar and certainly not an expert on Alvin Plantinga's works. I've listened to the handful of lectures available online several times over. I don't think Myers even wanted to understand the argument. Then Myers seems to agree that [given naturalism and evolution] we have no basis for thinking that our minds are reliable and then he asserts logical positivism.

Philosopher, Glenn Peoples has a few audio blogs on Alvin Plantinga if you are interested. He is very articulate and interesting.

http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/tag/alvin-plantinga/

I will be back hopefully sooner than later.less

Hello Cudd. First you said that both of Josephus' entries on Jesus were the product of Christian interpolations. When pressed for evidence, you provided the Jesus denier's interpolation, one that is completely unsupported by the text. Now you are trying to dismiss the historian's entry by suggesting that he thought Hercules was an historical person. By making this argument you are admitting that J...more

Hello Cudd. First you said that both of Josephus' entries on Jesus were the product of Christian interpolations. When pressed for evidence, you provided the Jesus denier's interpolation, one that is completely unsupported by the text. Now you are trying to dismiss the historian's entry by suggesting that he thought Hercules was an historical person. By making this argument you are admitting that Josephus did in fact refer to Jesus as an historical person.

It seems that you have also changed your opinion about Origen. Just a few comments below, you were trying to use him as a source against Josephus' entries. Upon the discovery that Origen actually corroborates with Josephus' entry on Jesus, now we just throw him under the wheel. These are two examples as to why serious scholarship can make all the difference. It seems that you only want to accept evidence that agrees with your presumptuous bias.

The facts speak for themselves, Cudd. Josephus did in fact refer to Jesus, like it or not.

If you want to look at it in much more detail, here's a few web sights for you:

http://refutationofinfidels.blog.com/2009/10/josephus-and-jesus-who-was-called-christ/

http://refutationofinfidels.blog.com/2009/10/jesus-the-brother-of-james-son-of-damneus/

http://www.kingdavid8.com/FAQs/Josephus.html

http://roseandrock.blogspot.com/2006/11/origen-and-josephus-part-1.html

http://roseandrock.blogspot.com/2006/11/origen-and-josephus-part-2.html

http://roseandrock.blogspot.com/2006/11/origen-and-josephus-part-3.html

http://roseandrock.blogspot.com/2006/11/origen-and-josephus-part-4.htmlless

Thanks for the reply Cudd. I was beginning to wonder. I'm off to work for now. I'll be back.

I appreciate your honesty Steve. I must admit that it is quite difficult to wrap my mind around all the technical language as well. Nevertheless, I'll give it a try. Keep in mind, this is a very short summary and as such it is more prone to criticisms as the result of omitting important technical details. The first argument that I gave essentially says that modern science is the product of Chr...more

I appreciate your honesty Steve. I must admit that it is quite difficult to wrap my mind around all the technical language as well. Nevertheless, I'll give it a try. Keep in mind, this is a very short summary and as such it is more prone to criticisms as the result of omitting important technical details.

The first argument that I gave essentially says that modern science is the product of Christian thought (although not every tenet within modern science is as cohesive as others in connection to Christian theology). Naturalism on the other hand lacks the resources to have produced inductive reasoning which is a most important element in doing science.

Plantinga's An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism is different in that he shows that if we posit naturalism and evolution, than there is a serious problem. He calls this Darwin's Doubt. Evolution ensures survival and reproduction, not truth. This translates as a defeater for holding to naturalism.

Here are a few resources for you by Alvin Plantinga:

http://www.origins.org/articles/plantinga_theismrationality.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism

http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/plantinga-against-materialism.pdf

Audio:

http://www.theopedia.com/Alvin_Plantingaless

It's happened to me more than once. I try to remember to copy it before I click "submit." Take your time no rush. As far as I know, no one has been able to refute Plantinga, although he has had to make some adjustments over the years. He just recently retired from Notre Dame. http://philreligion.nd.edu/events/PlantingaRetirement.shtml

My second argument was actually bit different. For the naturalist that accordingly would suppose evolution, there is a defeater. The following is part of Alvin Plantinga's thesis on An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, as borrowed from Wikipedia: Plantinga argued that neural structures that constitute beliefs have content, in the following way: "At a certain level of complexity, these ...more

My second argument was actually bit different. For the naturalist that accordingly would suppose evolution, there is a defeater. The following is part of Alvin Plantinga's thesis on An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, as borrowed from Wikipedia:

Plantinga argued that neural structures that constitute beliefs have content, in the following way: "At a certain level of complexity, these neural structures start to display content. Perhaps this starts gradually and early on (possibly C. elegans [a small worm with a nervous system composed of only a few neurons] displays just the merest glimmer of consciousness and the merest glimmer of content), or perhaps later and more abruptly; that doesn't matter. What does matter is that at a certain level of complexity of neural structures, content appears. This is true whether content properties are reducible to NP properties or supervene on them." So given materialism some neural structures at a given level of complexity acquire content and become beliefs. The question then is according to Plantinga: "what is the likelihood, given materialism, that the content that thus arises is in fact true?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalismless

Thank you for sharing that Louise.

Thanks Steve, I appreciate you taking out the time to write your thoughts on the matter. //“I think you can take the word naturalist out and replace it with, anybody.”// I'm not referring to just 'anybody.' This assumes that science could have developed in any culture regardless of their beliefs, which is simply not the case. For example, certain parts of the world have long consider...more

Thanks Steve, I appreciate you taking out the time to write your thoughts on the matter.

//“I think you can take the word naturalist out and replace it with, anybody.”//

I'm not referring to just 'anybody.' This assumes that science could have developed in any culture regardless of their beliefs, which is simply not the case. For example, certain parts of the world have long considered the physical world to be no more than an illusion. Is it any wonder why they are not exactly known for their scientific heritage? My point is that when the naturalist believes that we can observe the past and make predictions, there is nothing within his worldview for him to draw from that can grant such a lofty ambition. Although it may seem rather simple for us in 21st century western civilization, taking what we know for granted, but history says otherwise. Now then, it is not my intent to cast shadow on the inductive principle, but rather to say that the naturalist [and pantheist, Buddhist, et al] must borrow from Christian capital in order to participate. It is something that his view of the world does not provide.
.

“How can we safely reason from millions of instances of observation to universal rules that cover all the cases we have observed, as inductive reasoning purposes?”
This should have read, How can we safely reason from millions of instances of observation to universal rules that cover all the cases we have observed, as inductive reasoning proposes?

Although the Bible does use such vivid imagery as 'rolling back the sky,' by its very nature it is subject to diverse interpretations, especially in our day and age as some tend to assume that everything was originally intended to be interpreted literally (as if it is specifically and exclusively targeting the American audience). I think this is an obviously wrong assumption. Over the years those who have taken such passages as this to mean the immediate future (the Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, sold all of their property some years ago) have been a very small minority. Of course there are plenty of skeptics over the years that have made all kinds of outrageous claims, suggesting that the Bible should always be taken literally, accusing Christians of believing just about everything, including cannibalism, although there was “no substance to it” (if you are familiar with the issue and the reformed positions on the subject of the Lord's Supper, you will understand the double entendre).

I would argue that it is actually the Judeo-Christian worldview that has facilitated the basic components of inductive reasoning, those being the trustworthiness of past experiences and our belief that nature is uniform. Thinkers from various fields of study agree, including philosophers, historians, historians of science and sociologists. I can supply references if you'd like.less

If anyone is interested in doing further study on the objections and arguments below, I would recomend "Lord or Legend" by Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy, He Walked Among Us by Josh McDowell. There are also some good web sights that deal with this subject: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesustrial.html http://roseandrock.blogspot.com/2006/11/origen-and-josephus-part-4.html http://explanationblog.w...more

If anyone is interested in doing further study on the objections and arguments below, I would recomend "Lord or Legend" by Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy, He Walked Among Us by Josh McDowell. There are also some good web sights that deal with this subject:

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesustrial.html

http://roseandrock.blogspot.com/2006/11/origen-and-josephus-part-4.html

http://explanationblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/jesus-the-brother-of-james-son-of-damneus/

http://www.kingdavid8.com/FAQs/Josephus.html

http://www.thechristfiles.com.au/less

I'd be interested to hear Christopher's brother, Peter to chime in on the talk.

Steve: //"Hello Seed, lets say I have a hypothosis that an element will change its phase at certain temperature and pressures lets take Carbon for example which has various polymorphs such as Diamond and graphite. I take some carbon and recreate these conditions in the lab to show that this indeed is the case (you can do this for various elements/minerals). Now explain to me why I must give up bel...more

Steve: //"Hello Seed, lets say I have a hypothosis that an element will change its phase at certain temperature and pressures lets take Carbon for example which has various polymorphs such as Diamond and graphite. I take some carbon and recreate these conditions in the lab to show that this indeed is the case (you can do this for various elements/minerals). Now explain to me why I must give up belief in evolution for accepting these results as being correct, having gone through the scientific method? Steve"//

For one thing, it's quite possible for a person to have beliefs that commit to a particular worldview or philosophy while maintaining other beliefs that conflict with their outlook. Although we agree that there have been numerous contributions to science over the centuries, history reveals that it has been the Biblical worldview that propelled science into the 21st century, on account of the belief that the world is organized and predictable. As being fundamental in the employment of science, the question arises, how does the naturalist know that the universe is uniform and predictable? How is the naturalist justified in believing that events that have happened in the past will occur in the future? How can we safely reason from millions of instances of observation to universal rules that cover all the cases we have observed, as inductive reasoning purposes?

Secondly, naturalism plus evolution equals a defeater. Evolution entails survival and reproduction, neither of which require actual true beliefs. This places our power of reasoning as suspect and our beliefs as unreliable at best.less

Seedplanter says: "If you examine the history of science, you will discover that it has a very rich heritage among the Christian thinkers over the years and it owes them an enormous debt to the rise of modern science. Furthermore, naturalism inherently lacks the fundamental tools to develop the scientific method in the first place." Steve says: "The scientific method is quite simple really as I...more

Seedplanter says: "If you examine the history of science, you will discover that it has a very rich heritage among the Christian thinkers over the years and it owes them an enormous debt to the rise of modern science. Furthermore, naturalism inherently lacks the fundamental tools to develop the scientific method in the first place."

Steve says: "The scientific method is quite simple really as I have no doubt you are aware of, It, is just three things. Hypothosis from observation, experiment, theory. Thats all the tools you need, regardless of ones faith or lack of it anybody can do it, so I don't follow your last sentance, maybe you could expand further?"

Seedplanter: "To even utilize inductive reasoning, the [atheistic] naturalist must suspend his belief in [Neo-Darwinian] evolution."less

Thank you Steve. . . . . . . . . 2011, If you are referring to Ken Ham and company, it is a matter of interpretation and theological committment, neither of which are an issue of ignorance.

What does evolution vs creation have to do with Richard Morgan becoming a Christian? That really wasn't his issue.

Actually, 2011, this is not the case. For one thing there are different theories even within the naturalist camps. It should be no surprise that there are differences among Christians, even fundamentalists and evangelicals. John Polkinghorne is committed to evolution. Michael Behe is an evolutionist while he is actively promoting intelligent design. Then there is the case of Hugh Ross, who agrees ...more

Actually, 2011, this is not the case. For one thing there are different theories even within the naturalist camps. It should be no surprise that there are differences among Christians, even fundamentalists and evangelicals. John Polkinghorne is committed to evolution. Michael Behe is an evolutionist while he is actively promoting intelligent design. Then there is the case of Hugh Ross, who agrees with evolution while rejecting common decent (same as William Dembski). The fact is, die-hard atheists need to be educated just as much as Christian fundamentalists.

One more point that I would like to make is one that will really get your goat. Neo-Darwinian evolution (survival of the fittest combined with natural unguided selection) is not a proven fact. Before you pop a blood vessel, listen to what I'm saying here. Even if science is able to trace all of life down to one microbe, it does not prove that nature could do it alone. Of course, this has nothing to say in regard to how that life began. Furthermore, with all of the examples of flies and moths (which have been discredited by evolutionists as concrete proof), they do not take us to the past where we can make an actual observation. Yes, there are the supposed transitionary forms, but doesn't that just beg the question?

If you are wondering where I stand in this, it really makes no difference to me. I have not embraced Neo-Darwinian evolution, but neither am I a fanatic about letting Ken Ham interpret Genesis for me. I stand in agreement with modern science's calculations for the age of the earth, something that the Bible seems to be silent about.less

Steve: //"why do I think Rape is an action that is to wrong to carry out on a fellow human being, fair question. The answer is because I choose.."// Not exactly a very encouraging answer Steve. At least your honest.

BTW, Steve, I will be following this up above.

2011: "I find that fundamentalists often don't even know what they are talking." Good one (Laugh). My sentence structure may not have been perfect, but it was no worse than yours. I was singling out naturalistic evolution, because it specifically rules out any intelligence and/or guidance. Believe it or not, Michael Behe, who is constantly attacked by evolutionists over his work in intelligent...more

2011: "I find that fundamentalists often don't even know what they are talking." Good one (Laugh). My sentence structure may not have been perfect, but it was no worse than yours.

I was singling out naturalistic evolution, because it specifically rules out any intelligence and/or guidance. Believe it or not, Michael Behe, who is constantly attacked by evolutionists over his work in intelligent design, actually believes in theistic evolution. But, he disagrees with methodological natural evolution sometimes called Neo-Darwinian evolution. You may not like the terminology, but it is what it is.less

A couple of quick points. I know that atheists love to degrade Christians as ignorant, and of course it goes without saying, the cross is foolishness to unbelievers, but do you really think that Christianity facilitates ignorance? I've already offered some references that show how science is indebted to Christian thought and how the Jews facilitated serious history. There are many brilliant thinke...more

A couple of quick points. I know that atheists love to degrade Christians as ignorant, and of course it goes without saying, the cross is foolishness to unbelievers, but do you really think that Christianity facilitates ignorance? I've already offered some references that show how science is indebted to Christian thought and how the Jews facilitated serious history. There are many brilliant thinkers on both sides of the divide. If the atheist cannot admit that, then maybe he is NOT one of the more brighter ones.

I will be back to continue the discussion from my prior comments down the thread.less

2011: //"I said it before and I will say it again. I am offended by the fabrications of creationism and the brainwashing done by the church leaders of fundamentalist Christianity. I am here to expose their mistakes and hopefully to save some people from falling into that trap. That's my angle and that's all I want to do here for now."// What mistakes, if I may ask?