tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post3957750521328271993..comments2023-10-15T08:36:48.841-07:00Comments on A Counter Apologist Blog: Love, HIddenness, and Why I'm Nearly DoneA Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-91328440909852935382023-04-06T18:12:26.069-07:002023-04-06T18:12:26.069-07:00Explain how causation works outside the universe?Explain how causation works outside the universe?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-65635675359412499902020-04-28T08:28:43.252-07:002020-04-28T08:28:43.252-07:00Will you again answer to dr craigs answer to this ...Will you again answer to dr craigs answer to this Blog post?Bohrmaschinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12795387861643967329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-75663396387916950692020-04-22T10:29:28.279-07:002020-04-22T10:29:28.279-07:00Sorry I'm late to this discussion, but I'd...Sorry I'm late to this discussion, but I'd like to get more informed. Can you please provide a specific example of a pre-gospel narrative that the appearances of Jesus were considered more in the sense of a "vision" rather than corporeal? I've heard this argument before, but no references are ever provided to support this contention as far as I can remember.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11248589945061285156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-17898515294443164372020-04-21T08:24:02.520-07:002020-04-21T08:24:02.520-07:00I have a simple Resurrection defeater. The only ev...I have a simple Resurrection defeater. The only evidence for the resurrection are the claimed "post-mortem appearances." There would be no other way to confirm that an actual resurrection had taken place. So the claim solely relies on if these people really saw Jesus alive again.<br /><br />Well, since Paul uses a "vision" (Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19) as a "resurrection appearance" (1 Cor 15:8) then it necessarily follows that claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) were accepted as evidence of Jesus "appearing." This calls into question the veracity of the "appearances." Based on the earliest evidence in Paul's letters, claiming Jesus "appeared" could be nothing more than feeling like you communicated with him from heaven in a vision or a dream!<br /><br />It's only later, after the gospels are written that we see the appearances grow more physical/corporeal but scholars have long recognized that the gospels don't actually go back to eyewitnesses and the data they contain grows more fantastic as if a legend is growing. Since Paul is the only verified firsthand source by someone who claimed to "see" Jesus in the first person, and the "appearance" to him was a vision, (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) which he does not distinguish from the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8, then the earliest evidence suggests these were originally subjective spiritual experiences. Thus, the resurrection argument fails to meet the burden of proof - "they really saw Jesus alive again."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-28370549907195470792020-02-14T11:36:41.189-08:002020-02-14T11:36:41.189-08:00I.ve answered everything thethe great genus Carrie...I.ve answered everything thethe great genus Carrie has to say,<br /><br />http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/search/label/Richard%20Carrier<br /><br />http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2015/11/richard-carrier-and-bayes-craze.htmlJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-89178775241393320862020-02-14T01:58:12.316-08:002020-02-14T01:58:12.316-08:00There is no atheist argument I have not answered. ...There is no atheist argument I have not answered. most answered the only reason you wont buy it is because you dare not accept that you are wrong. You are right that logic is not the final oratorio and what I said applies to both sides. There is a deeper thing we can't communicate so logic is the cuisine for that thing. It's personal existential experience.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-81149231894386490942020-02-14T01:53:31.004-08:002020-02-14T01:53:31.004-08:00the problem is atheists dogmatically insist upon s...the problem is atheists dogmatically insist upon stoking to answers weather they work or not.I think it is cognitive dissonance that keeps you stuck in the assertion that there just can;t be a <br />God. Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-40969874639419212132020-01-26T20:39:23.009-08:002020-01-26T20:39:23.009-08:00Take a look at https://www.richardcarrier.info/arc...Take a look at https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13807<br /><br />May be interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-30991342412340851522020-01-23T17:38:21.384-08:002020-01-23T17:38:21.384-08:00I honestly do not think attacking the justificatio...I honestly do not think attacking the justifications for theism will solve anything. Most theists don't depend on any proof or arguments for their belief. Most theists in the world don't care or haven't even heard about apologetics or the work done by christian philosophers in the philosophy of religion. Most theists' belief is based on nothing but pure blind faith alone. So any effort to refute an argument for theism will fall in vain when theists use the excuse of "you just have to have faith". So even if all arguments for theism were refuted and William Lane Craig was out of a job as a result, most theists will continue to believe because most theists are comfortable having beliefs that are not justified. So if your goal is to make people abandon their theism, I'd say you take that final step and find another hobby.Hhechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12037427272927373748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-56555466453825358612020-01-23T17:35:59.575-08:002020-01-23T17:35:59.575-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Hhechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12037427272927373748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-47086549440621359382020-01-23T17:32:55.617-08:002020-01-23T17:32:55.617-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Hhechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12037427272927373748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-49404670436085653642020-01-23T17:30:40.893-08:002020-01-23T17:30:40.893-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Hhechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12037427272927373748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-52498785076665409082019-12-12T18:21:16.100-08:002019-12-12T18:21:16.100-08:00I'm not into philosophy as you are, but I'...I'm not into philosophy as you are, but I'm pretty tired now of apologist arguments. <br /><br />Maybe you can find a new hobby. I'm working on that too.Jim Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942893265661891146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-59736942323725425262019-12-03T06:29:31.447-08:002019-12-03T06:29:31.447-08:00You reminded me a bit of this old deconversion.com...You reminded me a bit of this <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150402052805/http://de-conversion.com/2008/11/09/the-psychology-of-apologetics-biblical-inerrancy/" rel="nofollow">old deconversion.com</a> article about how Quine's ideas in the philosophy of science apply to apologetic arguments. Because someone can always tweak some other hypothesis to preserve the one they're interested in keeping, it's arguably impossible to falsify a hypothesis in isolation.<br /><br />Because this dodge is available to people defending Christianity as well as mere theism, I'm not sure that focussing on the specifics of Christianity will avoid it. There will always be a cottage industry of apologist artisans producing harmonisations of contradictions in the gospels' accounts of the resurrection, for example. I generallly find such historical debates harder going than philosophical ones, as they involve a different set of skills (the historian's, rather than the philosopher's).Paul Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07812075028283068443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-38218524848614746562019-12-02T10:14:39.754-08:002019-12-02T10:14:39.754-08:00What you're describing is why the philosophy o...What you're describing is why the philosophy of religion must end. I wrote a book calling for it to end. Look for "Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End." See what I mean, and if you agree you'll get a burst of energy to do counter-apologetics like never before. John W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07167826997171207256noreply@blogger.com