tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4813157311466854823..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Reviewing reviews of the Licona/Dillahunty debateRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29466715807932578722017-03-10T00:57:43.897-05:002017-03-10T00:57:43.897-05:00The purpose of a debate is to present arguments fo...The purpose of a debate is to present arguments for your position. To give people reasons to believe. If you're not prepared to do that, then you're not doing apologetics, and a public debate is pointless. <br /><br />The question at issue is not whether the Christian apologist believes that God's existence must be proven by philosophy (or science or history), but how to engage in rational persuasion with those who don't share his starting-point.<br /><br />If, moreover, everything that is not God is contingent on God's existence for its own existence, then it wouldn't be surprising if there's multiple lines of evidence for God's existence. You're pitting theology against philosophy (and scientific evidence and historical evidence), as if these are autonomous disciplines, but reality isn't compartmentalized. If God is the source of all truth, then all truth points back to God. <br /><br />For a Christian apologist to treat God as a given, for himself, doesn't preclude him from presenting evidence to justify the given. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83788606858827202432017-03-09T22:04:09.879-05:002017-03-09T22:04:09.879-05:00"God's existence is the conclusion of the..."God's existence is the conclusion of the argument."<br /><br />As the renown philosopher of history, Coplestone, said in his first volume of history of philosophy, "in philosophy God is the conclusion to an argument, but in theology God is an assumption of an argument".<br /> Who wins in debates of God`s existence? The one who can get the religious side to think God`s existence is proven by philosophy, not assumed as in Theology. And, a fundamental question one has to ask and removing yourself from this trap by the unbeliever is: are you doing theology or philosophy in apologetics? All within the reformed, calvinist position believe apologetics is a theological activity. <br /><br /> And, lastly, to be honest, evidentialism is mainly adopted by people who are trying to be accepted by the scientific, secular philosophical departments in academia. Ludwigghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18214736782144126156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79587149513211403722017-03-08T15:36:03.942-05:002017-03-08T15:36:03.942-05:00"Empirical knowledge is impossible if God doe..."Empirical knowledge is impossible if God does not exist" And yet, we still carry out empirical experiments and get repeatable, verifiable results. This is an egotistical, condescending, discussion-ending statement. So, he can't justify his empirical knowledge. You not only justify his necessary tool (rational thought), but import an entire worldview at the same time. A bit of an overstatement in my view and others (see Habermas's comments in Five Views on Apologetics).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11905714993363833494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45267747565997350792017-03-08T14:14:24.216-05:002017-03-08T14:14:24.216-05:00"James White does not say that Licona should ..."James White does not say that Licona should have simply quoted Romans 1 to Dillahunty. Licona could have quoted Romans 1 to put Dillahunty on notice that his claim of not having enough proof is contrary to the Biblical position."<br /><br />Rom 1 is not about evidence for the Resurrection, but evidence for God's existence.<br /><br />"Then Licona should have followed that by offering arguments that Dillahunty is 'without excuse' for denying 'the God' (ton theon) because God's existence is 'clearly seen' from God's creation."<br /><br />Depends on what you mean. Rom 1 is only proof that Dillahunty is without excuse if God exists, if God commissioned Paul to be an apostle, if Romans is divinely inspired. <br /><br />That, however, is not a given in a debate over the Resurrection. An apologist will have to provide supporting arguments for each of those claims. <br /><br />"twenty-plus year-old story about a flying trashcan lid from some guy you knew is not the kind of evidence that will establish what Romans 1 claims."<br /><br />i) A red herring. Licona cited that anecdote and others as a defeater for naturalism. <br /><br />ii) Why do you think the age of the anecdote is pertinent? After all, unbelievers say the Gospels are unreliable because they were written decades after the event. If you're going to say living memory about events that happened two decades ago can't be trusted, then you play right into Bart Ehrman's hands. <br /><br />"As White pointed out, Mormons and Muslims can you give you stories like that."<br /><br />i) To begin with, not all stories are credible. One needs to do some sifting. <br /><br />ii) In addition, are you saying a Muslim or Mormon can't have an experience that falsifies naturalism? <br /><br />"In general, what you are missing is that White is saying that Licona is vainly trying to use a naturalistic epistemology to establish Christian-theistic metaphysical claims…"<br /><br />It's hardly a "naturalistic epistemology" for Licona to cite lines of evidence that overturn naturalism. <br /><br />"And since God is the source of all knowledge, we are within our epistemic rights to appeal to God's revelation in the Bible as the context to understand the resurrection."<br /><br />i) Not until you actually formulate a transcendental argument to establish your presupposition. Just asserting that empirical knowledge is impossible if God doesn't exist is not, in itself, an argument, but a programmatic claim. <br /><br />ii) Since, moreover, God does exist, there's nothing wrong with a Christian apologist appealing to examples from human experience that falsify naturalism. For God has put us in a world in which some people experience phenomena that run counter to naturalism. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69541742443527463082017-03-08T11:54:06.903-05:002017-03-08T11:54:06.903-05:00James White does not say that Licona should have s...James White does not say that Licona should have simply quoted Romans 1 to Dillahunty. Licona could have quoted Romans 1 to put Dillahunty on notice that his claim of not having enough proof is contrary to the Biblical position. Then Licona should have followed that by offering arguments that Dillahunty is "without excuse" for denying "the God" (ton theon) because God's existence is "clearly seen" from God's creation. A twenty-plus year-old story about a flying trashcan lid from some guy you knew is not the kind of evidence that will establish what Romans 1 claims. As White pointed out, Mormons and Muslims can you give you stories like that.<br /><br />In general, what you are missing is that White is saying that Licona is vainly trying to use a naturalistic epistemology to establish Christian-theistic metaphysical claims, namely that God exists and that He raised Jesus from the dead in order to conquer sin. The only defensible epistemology is one that posits a sovereign, eternal Creator as the source of all knowledge. If that kind of God does not exist, nobody can know anything about anything, not even probablistically. Empirical knowledge is impossible if God does not exist (see David Hume for the reductio of naturalistic empiricism). And since God is the source of all knowledge, we are within our epistemic rights to appeal to God's revelation in the Bible as the context to understand the resurrection. The Christian doesn't simply quote Old Testament prophecies against someone who assumes naturalistic empiricism; the Christian should demonstrate the epistemic necessity of God's revelation in Scripture. Then use that as the context to understand the resurrection. God spent 4,000 years, counting from the protoevangelium in Genesis 3:15, or around 1440 years counting from God's founding of the Israelite nation, establishing the context of the resurrection of the Messiah through special revelation, and the Christian apologist is standing on sinking sand to dismiss that as unnecessary baggage.Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07856737297410536189noreply@blogger.com