Comments for Evangelical Realism

Comment on Apologetics vs. Bible-based faith by Greg

Greg — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:36:33 +0000

I don’t expect you to change your opinion, but I just would like to voice mine. I am a “skeptical” Christian, and following your advice, I would like to know what exactly is the “specialized knowledge and training” and “exposure” you have had?

“he’d just point out that the Bible (if we even needed to have one) could be confirmed by simply asking God.” Before Adam sinned, he spoke to God daily, the very thing you are requiring of Holding to produce. This is now infact impossible, because God doesn’t talk to people that way since sin separates us, as you already know from your specialized training and exposure.

As a skeptic, you stink. Your basic logic is not even logic, it is completely skewed.

“In fact, Holding is quite plainly wrong in asserting that critics of the Bible need to acquire some impossibly difficult list of academic credentials in order to falsify Scripture’s claims to divine infallibility.”

This is exactly what you skeptics expect of Christians. Nice double standard, how “hypocritical” something you skeptics often accuse Christians of. BTW, I have never claimed to be perfect, just forgiven.

More of your supremely flawed logic: “You do not need a post-PhD mastery of the mathematics of quantum physics to know that the equation “2+2=17″ does not add up.”

This is a classic straw man. You have achieved nothing here other than exhibiting your own ignorance of basic logic. I don’t mean to say this in a harsh or demeaning way, I truly don’t, but you could seriously use some more training and exposure to basic logic before you tackle the monster of Biblical Inerrancy.

Comment on The apologetics of Paul’s conversion by Mr. G

Mr. G — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:24:52 +0000

I find the argument about about why doesn’t Jesus appear to each of us totally absurd. It’s like listening to my sisters arguing with my parents, “Why does she get that and I don’t?” or “Why is hers bigger than mine?” It’s like you want Jesus to appear like a genie from the lamp or a rabbit out of the hat. You can’t just conjure up God and expect Him to come at your beckoned call. Everyone has different conversion experiences. Otherwise, people would expect to see burning bushes like Moses did. Paul did, however, mention that more than 500 people witnessed the risen Savior in 1 Corinthians 15, which was written while many of them were still alive. If anyone doubted his story, they could go to those other witnesses. Plus, if anyone doubted Paul’s story, they could have called the other members of that particular caravan to give their testimony. Any attorney with half a working lobe would have figured that out. The fact that no one doubted his testimony shows that they found his story somewhat credible.
Also, his life after the conversion proves his case. Your argument that he converted because he was a small fish in a big pond doesn’t hold water. Sure, he gained more celebrity after his conversion, but I don’t think it was the kind of attention he would have wanted. He was beaten, whipped, stoned, imprisoned, and ultimately beheaded for his testimony, not to mention that his appearance many times caused rioting. Who wants that kind of publicity, especially for a lie? The fact that he not only stayed with his story and with his beliefs despite the persecution lends more credibility his case because people wouldn’t go to the lengths he did for a lie.

Comment on Saving Pascal by Shooting the Messenger « Jyunri Kankei

Shooting the Messenger « Jyunri Kankei — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:59:43 +0000

[...] Philosophy. Tags: Atheism, Logic, Philosophy trackback Evangelical Realism has a nice take on Pascal’s Wager that I wanted to comment [...]

Comment on TIA: Argumentum FUD hominem by Airor

Airor — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:23:06 +0000

frdiamond,

You are quoting from an abstract of a scientific paper. Unlike your high school education science papers, real research is about finding something new to write about. In this case he appears to be writing about the effect of Brownian motion on the current models of evolution of bacterial flagellum. If there were other papers dealing with the exact same subject and his research showed the exact same conclusions the paper wouldn’t need to be written!

Take a look at section 6 entitled “References”. If you want, go ahead and search through the hundreds of papers he had to research to get background for his paper, feel free to show us that none of them deal with his topic.

Comment on Evidence of a real ghost (writer) by David Ghost Writer

David Ghost Writer — Tue, 27 May 2008 14:46:50 +0000

You inadvertently raise an interesting question. A ghost writer is someone who writes a work in someone else’s name (the “author” but remains unseen. But what if the author did not want the work written and did not approve of it and even feels that it harms his reputation. Quite apart from the legal questions, do we still call this person a ghost writer, at least until he is hauled away to jail?

Comment on Moving Day! by PalMD

PalMD — Mon, 19 May 2008 23:38:30 +0000

Thanks for the news! See ya there!

Comment on Christianity as a hospital by Rowan

Rowan — Sat, 17 May 2008 14:06:25 +0000

What with the degree of separaton from inmates and the governing bodies of the institution, and the self-confessed moral failings of these inmates…the image that sprngs to mind is: “prison.”

Comment on XFiles Friday: Leaping to the next conclusion by chigliakus

chigliakus — Fri, 16 May 2008 20:32:21 +0000

Is that it for G&T then? Congratulations on keeping up with your X-Files Friday posting schedule over the past year (or longer?)
I’m looking forward to your dissection of the free will argument. I’ve found most Christians don’t understand that their ability to make choices does not guarantee the existence of [the Christian definition of] free will.

Comment on XFiles Friday: Leaping to the next conclusion by David D.G.

David D.G. — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:35:08 +0000

Your deconstructions are marvelous, and this series of them is particularly fun. At this rate, by the time you are done, I don’t think there will be much left of their book except for a few whimpering commas. Keep up the great work!

~David D.G.

Comment on XFiles Friday: Leaping to the next conclusion by Rowan

Rowan — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:24:14 +0000

Definitely! Just like to say I really enjoy reading your posts, and am looking forward to the next one.
As I read it I was thinking that Geisler and Turek would probably answer this by saying something about how most people don’t want to hear, or suppress the truth; but if God is infinitely powerful and knowledgeable, surely he is infinitely capable of presenting us with proof of his existence sufficient to convince us?