MHE/Andreusz debate Christianity

Andreusz · Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:08 am Post subject: MHE/Andreusz debate Christianity

Hi MHE:

The rules of our discussion will be the ones you set out at the beginning of the previous thread. They make complete sense to me.

To start off, I'll repeat my question:

I'd like to address your second belief. How do you know that the Bible is the literal word of God?

Andreusz · Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:12 am Post subject:

By the way, I assume that you live in the USA. I live in South Africa, so there may be some delays in this debate owing to time zone differences. For example, I am going out to dinner in about 45 minutes.

Andreusz · Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:22 am Post subject:

MHE, you say: "I would like to know exactly what you currently believe as an atheist."

Well, I would say I'm more than an atheist -- I'm an anti-mystic. I believe that everything can ultimately be explained in terms of observable forces acting on observable matter.* There is no spirit, there are no supernatural beings.

*I should add, or deducible forces acting on deducible matter, e.g. the existence of gluons, muons, etc., and the forces acting on them can be deduced from the behavious of observable matter.

Andreusz · Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:25 am Post subject:

That's why I say I'm more than an atheist -- I don't believe in _any_ kind of supernatural forces/influences, including astrology... or psychic powers...or crystals (except, of course, crystal meth).

MHE · Visitor Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Posts: 8 Local time: 6:05 PM

Your first question is an excellent one to begin our discussion and will lead invariable to further debate.

First, it is important to address the impossibility of knowing. I do not KNOW that the Bible is the Word of God. I believe it is more probable that it is the Word of God than that it isn’t. Therefore, I base my beliefs on it being true because it is logical to choose the potential truth with the highest probability. This is similar to the fact that we cannot prove the world we exist in is actually real in the way we perceive it. Various philosophers have debated this point and it is commonly accepted that it is at least possible that this world is not, in fact, reality. However, it is highly probable that it is, based upon the collective experience of humanity (assuming you accept this experience as valid). Therefore, I cannot prove absolutely that the Bible is the Word of God. However, I do believe that I can demonstrate that it is at least possible that the Bible is the Word of God and that such belief is not irrational in any way. In contrast, the anti-mystic position that the Bible cannot even possibly be the Word of God has no support.

First, let us look to providing at least one piece of evidence that the Bible COULD be true.

Predicting the results of a hypothesis and then testing to see if those results hold can test any theory. This is the basic idea behind the scientific process.

Hypothesis: The Bible is the literal Word of God.

If the above is true, what predictions can we make that we can then test? None. Why? The simple reason is that the above premise does not include enough information. What God are we talking about? What is meant by literal? Therefore, I propose the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis: The Bible is a treatise on the nature of reality whose truth is based in the ultimate revelation of the God that it describes.

Given the above hypothesis, what can we test?

1. The Bible claims to be perfect. Therefore, it can have no errors of any nature, scientific or spiritual.

Based upon the above, I believe the Bible to be the Word of God because my experience with it has not led me to ANY instances of it being false. It has withstood every test I have thrown against it and provided logical answers to every question that I have posed to it. Nothing else (book, person, computer, etc.) has exhibited this same feature.

As I understand the anti-mystic position, anti-mystics proclaim that it is not even POSSIBLE that the Bible could be the Word of God since God does not exist. I am aware of no logical evidence that supports this position. Evidence that the Bible is the Word of God (the fact that it is a book written by different men, at different times, in different places thousands of years ago and yet does not contain statements which are demonstrably false being just one argument) outweighs evidence that it is not (of which I have never encountered any that stands up to honest scrutiny). Therefore it is more probable that the Bible is the Word of God than that it isn’t.

MHE · Visitor Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Posts: 8 Local time: 6:05 PM

Now to continue our discussion of my question for you from the original post. As stated in my original request for a partner, I wish to simultaneously allow each of us to be on both the offensive and defensive.

Your response to my post gave two possibilities. The first admits that free will is an illusion. The second attempts to avoid requiring free will to be an illusion by stating that perhaps consciousness allows us to perceive possibilities in the universe and choose between them. However, this does not address the issue that I raised.

My initial issue stated that if all matter was subject to the laws of physics and that nothing supernatural can occur, then all matter must be moving exactly as it was destined to by the initial forces of the Big Bang. There are no other options for our mind to conceive of. An example of this is the movement of the planets. No conscious force acts on them. As a result, there is only one path they can possibly follow, defined by the laws of the universe. This is why we can predict planetary positions. Our consciousness allows us to see the possibilities but, in fact, there is only one possibility.

In short, my argument comes down to this.

1. If natural laws are absolute and govern all matter in the universe then it logically follows that all matter in the universe is still fulfilling its initial trajectory from the Big Bang since nothing can alter these natural laws.

2. Therefore free will must not exist because the atoms that make up humans are all moving independently without reference to a supposed "mind". Human consciousness is an illusion created by this arbitrary movement.

or

3. Something supernatural (being defined as something outside the laws of physics that can alter those laws) allows humans to influence matter around them, changing it from its original path.

If 2 (freewill does not exist) then atheism runs into the traditional problem of failure to provide for morality. If humans have no freewill, then why is murder wrong? The murderer has no choice and the victim was destined to die. Therefore, either morality is an illusion or the supernatural exists.

Most atheists (and I'm assuming anti-mystics) claim that morality exists (whether it be absolute or not). Therefore, they are wrong about at least one of the two following propositions....

1. Morality exists.
2. The supernatural does not exist.

MHE · Visitor Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Posts: 8 Local time: 6:05 PM

My original argument may seem unnecessarily complex. In short, it breaks down to the following...(Please do not assume I am insulting your intelligence with this summary. It is in fact intended for me since I feel the original post could be slightly misleading and confusing and I want to ensure that my position is accurately conveyed).

Logically, there are two possibilities for this question.

The Bible is a treatise on the nature of reality whose truth is based in the ultimate revelation of the God that it describes.
The Bible is not a treatise on the nature of reality whose truth is based in the ultimate revelation of the God that it describes.

Proving either one of these propositions absolutely is impossible. However, both can be tested.

At least some arguments FOR the proposition exist, withstand logical scrutiny and can be tested. At least one of these is...

1. All claims made by the Bible have either been proven true or have not been proven false.
2. The odds of a book written using only human intelligence by different authors, in different places, at different times on topics as diverse as morality, science, law, etc. withstanding all logical scrutiny and scientific advancement for thousands of years is extremely small.
3. Therefore, it is more likely that the Bible was written by someone possessing more than human intelligence.
4. No intelligence greater than human intelligence has ever been proven to exist in the natural world.
5. Therefore, the source of this intelligence is most likely supernatural.
6. Therefore, the Bible is most likely the product of supernatural forces.

To my knowledge, no arguments for the second proposition that can withstand logical scrutiny exist.

Please note that if you intend to bring up contradictions in the Bible as proof of falsity that you must accept ANY logical resolution of those contradictions since these resolutions are based upon MY reading of the Bible and, per our rules, I am required to defend only MY beliefs not the commonly held beliefs of Christianity. Unless you can prove that my resolution is logically impossible, then it must stand.

Finally, as to times. I understand that a time difference exists between us and I am hopeful that this will not impede debate. As I originally stated, I hope this debate will be extended over a long period of time so that each of us will have the chance to think about our responses and deal with the other aspects of our lives. I intend to check regularly but please do not hold a few hours absence (or, in extreme cases, a few days) as evidence that I no longer wish to debate. Should I decide to stop our discussion, I will post my intention. Please do the same.

Hope you enjoyed dinner.

Andreusz · Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:22 am Post subject:

Hi Matthew. Well, I can think of four parts of the Bible which contradict outside evidence. First, the entire account of the creation. The earth did not come into existence before the sun. Light has never existed separately from a light source (v. 3-5 compared to v.14). The sky is not a firmament, and there are no waters 'above' it.

(I am reminded of Spike Milligan's beautiful poem: "
"The sky is riddled through with holes
To let the rain come in;
But all the holes are very small
And that's why rain is thin.")

I don't think there is any evidence of a geographical period when the entire world was covered with water (v. 9). The moon is not a light, but a mirror (v. 16). Then we have the problem of 'after his kind' (v. 11, v. 21, v. 25) -- well the fossil record, the physical structure of animals, and genetics only make sense if kinds are mutible. Finally, the geographical record shows that the world is about 4.5 billion years old -- it did not take six days to get from pre-life to mammals.

The second contradiction is that there is no evidence of a universal tax being imposed in the time of Herod the Great.

The third contradiction is that the Romans used crucifixion as a punishment for one crime only, namely insurrection. They would not have crucified a man for blasphemy, even against their _own_ gods.

Fourthly, there is Matthew 24:34: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." It's about 70 generations later, and we're still waiting.

MHE · Visitor Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Posts: 8 Local time: 6:05 PM

Andreusz,

Great reply! I apologize for the delay in my response but I have been very busy the last few days since I am currently moving. I am formulating a response to your arguments now and I will post it later on today. Thanks.

MHE

Andreusz · Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:04 am Post subject:

I look forward with interest!

Andreusz · Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:00 am Post subject:

MHE, I can't help noticing that you haven't replied for four days. Does this mean that I win this round? As in:

Game Show Host (John Cleese) : Good evening and welcome to Stake Your Claim. First this evening we have Mr Norman Voles of Gravesend who claims he wrote all Shakespeare's works. Mr Voles, I understand you claim that you wrote all those plays normally attributed to Shakespeare?
Voles (Michael Palin) : That is correct. I wrote all his plays and my wife and I wrote his sonnets.
Host: Mr Voles, these plays are known to have been performed in the early 17th century. How old are you, Mr Voles?
Voles: 43.
Host: Well, how is it possible for you to have written plays performed over 300 years before you were born?
Voles: Ah well. This is where my claim falls to the ground.
Host: Ah!
Voles: There's no possible way of answering that argument, I'm afraid. I was only hoping you would not make that particular point, but I can see you're more than a match for me!

beamishboy · Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:21 am Post subject:

Did MHE reply?
_________________
Please visit my super-duper blog:

http://myownbildungsroman.blogspot.com/

	AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> One-On-One Discussion	All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1