- 70% is not a consensus.
- The questions of why we exist and the origin of the universe is not the sole domain of philosophers of religion. Why have you limited the scope of expertise? I believe it is to get the answer you want.
Define truth.
There is a broad scholarly consensus that the earliest Christians sincerely believed Jesus was risen; there is not a scholarly consensus either that he was resurrected or that he was not. On the central miracle claim, experts are divided, not unanimous.
If I am not mistaken, you consistently argue against the resurrection being historical, suggest that Christians are mistaken about the central miracle of their faith; and apply evidential standards that, if accepted, would lead Christians to abandon belief in a literal resurrection.
You often speak as if your conclusions were simply the verdict of ‘the experts,’ but that’s not the case. On the resurrection, your theology has no confirmed scholarly consensus behind it; and on your scientific claims, the same is true. What you present as consensus is really conviction.
2 Likes
-
70% is remarkably high for philosophy. Try again.
-
you brought up the philosophy consensus and this issue the other day. Your objection was “why don’t most expert philosophers believe in God” and when shown that a great majority of the expert philosophers who specialize in this specific field do, you dismissed philosophy out of hand. Try again.
Vinnie
It is still the Black & White mentality. All or nothing. Ether accpet the “experts” or reject them. Why? Why can’t people reject one, or two parts of the whole? Why can’t the “experts” be wrong on one or two parts rather than all or nothing!
It always seems to come down to this. Reject one, you reject the lot! No!
Imagine a world where everybody thinks the sane! No horse racing, no discussion, no new ideas, no rejection of old ideas. No advancement. Stagnation,
Most of the problems on this forum are caused by Black & white thinking, (and stubborn, blind & deaf dogmatism)
Richard
1 Like