You seem so much more reasonable than Dennett.
1 Like
Rereading this, I can see how it could be misunderstood. While an evidentiary statement can be logically countered (however implausible), a deductive statement is impossible to rationally counter.
Now, where exactly does the self-evident work or testimony of Spirit fall in this realm? Maybe it’s a genuine boundary state in the theory of knowledge.
Can you not “pretend” to be the skeptic, hearing your testimony? While I believe that the Holy Spirit has convicted me of and continues to convict me of sin, I recognize that the human conscience is fairly universal, no matter what its origin. How to prove that it is the work of the Spirit? That’s harder. The well-informed skeptic will be able to provide alternative arguments that explain their own experience differently.
Ok. Whatever.
I tried to give you some suggestions for evaluating arguments you would want to use as apologetics. This the approach I take, when attempting to develop a thesis in serious writing or discussion.
Take ‘em or leave ‘em.
I didn’t reply to involve myself in a display of wits.
I generally find that people judge themselves (and their logical processes and conclusions) more lightly than they judge others/others’. If you can manage a fully dispassionate assement of your own thinking, you are miles ahead of most of the rest of us. Good for you.
1 Like
Thanks. That context helps.
1 Like
Definitely the case for me, that I don’t judge mysefl adequately. Even aside from that, it’s helpful to have another opinion, to see something from another perspective. It’s painful to have someone correct me (but healthy!).
There was a small study on physicians running an ICU–in a limited size one, was it better to have the same doc working day and night for a week, or to have 2 different, equally qualified docs handing off every 12 hours? The advantage to having one doc was to have continuity of care and not miscommunicate. The advantage to having 2 would be a different perspective. Interestingly, the patients who had 2 different docs did better from the varied perspective.
Thanks.
2 Likes
Surely this is the benefit of having an open discussion like we are here.
And while it’s true we all stand to be corrected, neither should we be afraid to make a decision or do our job to the best of our ability and knowledge.
1 Like
It is and it isn’t… I am amazed how common, even in Christianity, are people still thinking they can save themself.
But then again, I am not amazed, as this was an uncommon gift from God in my life.
Something really changed in me after this encounter with Jesus. I can count on one hand the number of times this has happened, but each time he brought a genuine change in me.
I definitely need to spend more time with him
2 Likes
I think it’s a really good point that we don’t communicate to the best on the Internet. One of George Macdonald’s books (“The Fisherman’s Lady”) describes the rage of a blind man who held a murderous grudge against all Campbells, as that clan murdered his grandparents (apparently, the story was somewhat autobiographical, as Macdonald himself was related to that clan who had been massacred in Glencoe). His grandson explained that if he had been able to look people in the eyes, he would not be able to hate so much. In a way, that’s true for us all. Even when we think we communicate well, we may sound we are saying something totally different. I suspect that the Internet, while it has taught us much, as also caused much division because of the false impression that we understand, when we haven’t really communicated or listened adequately.
I’ve certainly learned a lot, but I have much to apologize for in terms of communication.
1 Like
Online discussion has its disadvantages, but there are also some benefits that I don’t think have been available before.
Prior to forums like this what opportunities would you have as a nonprofessional to find a group of people to talk with at an advanced theological, philosophical or scientific level?
1 Like
It was a poorly worded statement from me. I tried to clarify what I meant in a subsequent comment.
If you want to consider how deductive statements (or thinking) cannot be countered, then I’d love to have that conversation.
It’s probably a bit off topic though.
Hmmm. that wasn’t clear to me.
When I reread it, there was a definite cringe factor.
I wrote this immediately to explain what I meant about how not all statements have a counter argument.
But what a range of topics and people!
Turns out @vjtorley holds a position quite relevant to the role of self-evident works of the Spirit in the Acts 2:14-36 passage.
“Torley is arguing that there are private miracles people should believe despite the requirement for sufficient objective third-party evidence.”
Thomas Jefferson was famous for doing exactly that.
For those who think morality needs to be objective I can see the draw of a moral code being handed down by the divine. However, I think most people use their own inner moral sense to determine if a code is moral. Therefore, claims of divinity don’t really matter.
1 Like
Hi Honey. I’m home.
A simpler time. War time.
How does an unsound logical form leave sceptics (i.e. the merely unchurched rational) behind? Adding legend to liar, lunatic or lord creates a tetralemma. Adds a fourth dimension. Opens up Lewis’ false trichotomy.
Ah. Well, hello there.
1 Like
Thanks for coming back to me, Klax.
First, a clarification:
- In my view, the argument doesn’t leave the sceptical person behind because it is somehow ‘so good’ that they struggle to grasp it, but because the argument fails to bring the sceptical person to the trilemma’s desired destination. Precisely because Lewis’ arguments start where most contemporary folks are not.
Second, a pushback:
- In my experience, not all sceptics are unchurched rationales. I’ve talked to plenty who were churched and plenty more who were irrational.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.