Jesus and logic

[thegrons]

How can an athiest challenge the logic of Christianity? I often challenge the athiest on campus to show me one logical flaw in our theology… Here is one approach…

How would you answer the classic syllogism: All men are mortal, Socartes is a man :. Socrates is mortal.

All men are mortal, Jesus is fully man (per our Christology):. Jesus is mortal.

How would you get around this since we believe that Jesus is immortal yet 100% God and 100% man?

John

 

[JohnDamian]

This is the fallacy of equivocation.

The substance of Jesus and God is identical and both entities are eternal. However; it is the nature of Jesus that is 100% man; and 100% God. That is to say; his substance is not that of Man.

The statement;

All men are mortal, Socartes is a man :. Socrates is mortal.

Is true in a substantial sense; but not true in a natural sense. The name of “man” is not applied univocally; that is to say it is applied equivocally.

Man; in the hypostatic union applies to the equivocal term of nature; wheras in your quote it acts in equivocal terms to substance.

To say that there is an interaction between these two is to equivocate.

 

[thegrons]

John;

Could we not also say that the premise is wrong per the Christian worldview? I believe that in Jesus’ argument with the Sadducees He argued that God is the God of the living and then He went on to say that even though Abraham died, he lives forevermore?

Would you also find it cogent to challenge the presuppositon that “all men are mortal”? I I challenge the worldview of the athiest on almost all fronts from their denial of the abstract realm to their denial of “personality” in that man exists beyond electrochemical reactions and collective experiences.

John

 

[thegrons]

John;

I see what you are saying. Our ontology does not equivicate man and his body; whereas the materialsit does. We are body and soul and can speak of man “apart” from his body. Although as I write this post I don’t wish to go too far into dualism; because in another sense we cannot describe ourselves apart from our bodies. I believe that God created “Man” as body and soul (and spirit if you like) and to only be separated temporarily. Just as Christ will live with His human body for eternity… So we might wish to say that man is not “only” a mortal and the first premise doesn’t adaquately describe man?

 

[JohnDamian]

So we might wish to say that man is not “only” a mortal and the first premise doesn’t adaquately describe man?

Absolutely; we should deny the claim that man is only mortal insofar as it denotes a distance from material substance; and not nature.

However; whilst is it a posteriori the case that man in his material sense evidently dies; it is clear that the unity of man must be restored by a general bodily ressurection; for else natural teleology of man per se cannot be atained.

So whilst the claim that material substance of man appears mortal; it is only insomuch as it can die; it is also clear from natural reason that it must however be ressurected; wheras the natural soul of the man never dies per se; and as such is considered immortal.

Thus the claim that the unity that is “man” is mortal; is wrong. Or at least denied by Catholics.

 

[Bill_Marshall]

An Old Truck Driver wishes to add 2 cents:

Jesus was a man and he laid aside his Godhead to become one like us.
He Died. (He freely accepted death on the cross)
No logical problem.
He Rose from the dead proving His Godhead.

Therefore we have salvation in his name.

Praise God.

Logically speaking, I rather like my argument.

Any rebuttals?

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

How can an athiest challenge the logic of Christianity? I often challenge the athiest on campus to show me one logical flaw in our theology… Here is one approach…

How would you answer the classic syllogism: All men are mortal, Socartes is a man :. Socrates is mortal.

All men are mortal, Jesus is fully man (per our Christology):. Jesus is mortal.

How would you get around this since we believe that Jesus is immortal yet 100% God and 100% man?

John

Deductive arguments can often get lost in sophistry. First instance, the first premise “All men are mortal” is not a logical necessity like “2+2=4” is logically necessary, which simply ***must ***be true in all cases. “All men are mortal” is actually an inductive inference, we have never seen a man NOT be mortal, but all inductive inference are not logically necessary, they are merely observations of how we’ve always seen things happen in the past. But more importantly, the Second Person of the Trinity, in taking on a human nature, WAS mortal in the human nature, he died in that human nature. That he was brought to a new and very different life after dying does not change that he was mortal in his human nature.

 

[thegrons]

Yes I like this answer because it gets to the heart of the false premise that all men are mortal and cease to exist at death (tacit implication); I like this approach because it doesn’t rely on our Christian faith and refutes the athiest on his grounds. Secondly I would add after this rejoinder that man is an eternal being and death is a mere stage in his eternal being; the righteous will be resurrected to eternal life in the New Jerusalem here on earth and the sinner - to eternal hell, yet every mortal as Paul said will put on imortality. So per our worldview (which everyone presupposes including the godless), Christ, Abraham, Moses, and the departed saints will one day be reunited with a body that is incurptable. Christ being the first fruits already has His body.

I do like your pointing out that all men being moratal is inductive versus a necessary truth because it again takes on the athiest on his grounds which brings some credibility to the argument before we present our argument and might indeed soften a few jaded hearts to receive the truth!

 

[thegrons]

I was thinking about proofs of immortality and I remembered the empirical proof of Ellijah being taken alive into heaven by chariots of fire; and Peter witnessing Moses and Ellijah taking with Jesus on the Mt. These proofs are as good as any proofs for the existence of anyone else in history. Epistemically they are empirical and transmitted to us via authority or testimony.

 

[_Locke]

Hi thegrons, you might find this article interesting. It puts forth a number of incompatible-properties arguments:

infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html

 

[wanstronian]

“Theology: the branch of knowledge that deals with spinning, metaphorizing, and otherwise manipulating the concept of God in an attempt to nullify the contradictions, inconsistencies and proven errors that are evident in biblical texts and religious belief systems.”
- Wanstronian

 

[JohnDamian]

“Theology: the branch of knowledge that deals with spinning, metaphorizing, and otherwise manipulating the concept of God in an attempt to nullify the contradictions, inconsistencies and proven errors that are evident in biblical texts and religious belief systems.”
- Wanstronian

“Theology: The Study of God”

• Objectivity

 

[thegrons]

Another good example of empirical knowledge is the ressurection of Christ. There were 500 eye witnesses who saw Him after He rose from the dead. Many Christians trying to defend the faith don’t realize that their knowledge of Christ is justified in the same way as any other emperical knowledge.

 

[wanstronian]

Another good example of empirical knowledge is the ressurection of Christ. There were 500 eye witnesses who saw Him after He rose from the dead. Many Christians trying to defend the faith don’t realize that their knowledge of Christ is justified in the same way as any other emperical knowledge.

It’s true because the bible says so? That’s what you call empirical data?

 

[thegrons]

I have knolwedge of Christ in the same way I acquire any other knowledge via a justified true belief.

1. The coherence of the bible that was written by 40 different authors over thousands of years is unmatched by any other writing and incomprehensible without the aid of an over-seer viz. The Holy Spirit.
2. We have many empiricial proofs of God in the bible, the burning bush, the Shakeina glory, the miricles of Jesus and the apostles…
3. We have over 500 eye witnesses to His ressurection.
4. We have over 24,000 manuscripts dating back to the 1st century that show us that the bible we have today has been preserved and translated correctly.
5. Over 1,000 prophecies have been fulfilled in the bible already, 27 alone as Christ hung on the cross.
6. No one man or book has change the world as Christ and the bible.

7.He promises the new birth to all who repent, believe and are baptized and truly receive Him into their hearts and I can travel anywhere in the world and here the exact testimony that I have with regards to the experience of receiving Christ.

1. Finally, God is the only rational explaination for the origin of the universe.

So yes, I feel that I have more justification to believe in Jesus than I do to believe that George Washington was the first president of the United States.

Now I have had people challenge me with their “spagetti monster” god. My response is: Let’s here your justification and see if you can convince me. After all every bit of knowledge that we acquire is either a posterori or a priori and every knowledge claim is subject to challenge…I am comfortable that my knowledge claims are cogent.

 

[wanstronian]

I have knolwedge of Christ in the same way I acquire any other knowledge via a justified true belief.

1. The coherence of the bible that was written by 40 different authors over thousands of years is unmatched by any other writing and incomprehensible without the aid of an over-seer viz. The Holy Spirit.

Odd that you think that, given that it’s filled with contradictions.

1. We have many empiricial proofs of God in the bible, the burning bush, the Shakeina glory, the miricles of Jesus and the apostles…

You have some stuff written in a book, so you believe it’s true. Okay…

1. We have over 500 eye witnesses to His ressurection.

Written in the same book…

1. We have over 24,000 manuscripts dating back to the 1st century that show us that the bible we have today has been preserved and translated correctly.

Okay, I’ll buy that, I haven’t looked into it myself. Doesn’t mean it’s accurate though.

1. Over 1,000 prophecies have been fulfilled in the bible already, 27 alone as Christ hung on the cross.

Oh please, not the ‘prophecies’ thing. They’re all either too vague or could easily have been written to have been fulfilled.

1. No one man or book has change the world as Christ and the bible.

It’s true the bible has had significant impact on the world. That doesn’t make it true.

7.He promises the new birth to all who repent, believe and are baptized and truly receive Him into their hearts and I can travel anywhere in the world and here the exact testimony that I have with regards to the experience of receiving Christ.

Okay, you have some subjective beliefs that prove nothing.

1. Finally, God is the only rational explaination for the origin of the universe.

That’s some assertion! Presumably though, you’re no more able to substantiate it than anybody else ever has!

So yes, I feel that I have more justification to believe in Jesus than I do to believe that George Washington was the first president of the United States.

I think we’re seeing the problem here. Your desire for it to be true supercedes your ability to think rationally about it.

Now I have had people challenge me with their “spagetti monster” god. My response is: Let’s here your justification and see if you can convince me. After all every bit of knowledge that we acquire is either a posterori or a priori and every knowledge claim is subject to challenge…I am comfortable that my knowledge claims are cogent.

As I’m sure you’re aware, no atheist seriously propounds the FSM - it’s just an illustration to show the irrationality of religious belief.

I won’t convince you, and you won’t convince me. Now that I’ve seen some of your reasoning, I know that it’s not worth even continuing the discussion.

 

[Big_Dummy]

How can an athiest challenge the logic of Christianity? I often challenge the athiest on campus to show me one logical flaw in our theology… Here is one approach…

How would you answer the classic syllogism: All men are mortal, Socartes is a man :. Socrates is mortal.

All men are mortal, Jesus is fully man (per our Christology):. Jesus is mortal.

How would you get around this since we believe that Jesus is immortal yet 100% God and 100% man?

John

James 2:26 defines death as seperation of your immortal part, spirit from your mortal part, body. His definition of mortal is off based too.

 

[thegrons]

Odd that you think that, given that it’s filled with contradictions.

You have some stuff written in a book, so you believe it’s true. Okay…

Written in the same book…

Okay, I’ll buy that, I haven’t looked into it myself. Doesn’t mean it’s accurate though.

Oh please, not the ‘prophecies’ thing. They’re all either too vague or could easily have been written to have been fulfilled.

It’s true the bible has had significant impact on the world. That doesn’t make it true.

Okay, you have some subjective beliefs that prove nothing.

That’s some assertion! Presumably though, you’re no more able to substantiate it than anybody else ever has!

I think we’re seeing the problem here. Your desire for it to be true supercedes your ability to think rationally about it.

As I’m sure you’re aware, no atheist seriously propounds the FSM - it’s just an illustration to show the irrationality of religious belief.

I won’t convince you, and you won’t convince me. Now that I’ve seen some of your reasoning, I know that it’s not worth even continuing the discussion.

Please list all of the contradictions in the bible and I wiould like to see if they are contradictions or issues of context. Is this really an issue that is keeping you from belief in the Christian God or is this a smoke screen?

Secondly I don’t have the faith to be an athiest because your system of belief requires that I accept that the world was created by nothing from nothing which is itself a logical contradiction. The universe is not infinite because an actual infinite set of events viz the universe cannot exist in reality so the uiniverse had a beginning. Secondly the complexity of nature, mankind, the stars and planets, the animal kingdom…for this to happen radomly is vacuously true. There might be a 1 in 10 to the 85,000 power that one living cell could have evolved from non-life by itself; the odds of all creation are insurmountable. Now what the athiest is left with is a logical possibility. Consider that it is logically possible that I flap my arms and fly to the sun for a BBQ and then get back home for a night cap. This too is possible but most would call me a nut for proposing such a scenario; but this is exactly what you do when you take the odds of the universe evolving from nothing by mere chance.

So as you see, as a man of reason, I chose to believe in the great “watchmaker” and find the design argument too compelling. Don’t bother with Hume’s attack on it either, his attack on this argument was wildly tenuous at best.

Chose for yourself. I am sure that you have heard enough of the gosplel to be saved and held accountable at your final judgement. Choose life, choose Christ!

 

[_Locke]

Please list all of the contradictions in the bible and I wiould like to see if they are contradictions or issues of context. Is this really an issue that is keeping you from belief in the Christian God or is this a smoke screen?

Here is a pretty good list thegrons - ebonmusings.org/atheism/biblecontra.html. (Please read it all the way through, it’s very good) As you can see, biblical inaccuracies and contradictions are most definitely not a smokescreen, the Bible was written by men and it shows.

thegrons:

Secondly I don’t have the faith to be an athiest because your system of belief requires that I accept that the world was created by nothing from nothing which is itself a logical contradiction.

Atheism is not a system of belief, but lack of belief. Another interesting read - atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p/AtheismReligion.htm. Even if we took atheism to mean denying God’s existence, all you have is one belief.

thegrons:

The universe is not infinite because an actual infinite set of events viz the universe cannot exist in reality so the uiniverse had a beginning.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say there (the universe is not infinite because it is not infinite?) but I’d like a little bit more explanation on why an actual infinite cannot exist in reality.

thegrons:

Secondly the complexity of nature, mankind, the stars and planets, the animal kingdom…for this to happen radomly is vacuously true. There might be a 1 in 10 to the 85,000 power that one living cell could have evolved from non-life by itself; the odds of all creation are insurmountable.

You’re creating a false dilemma between divine creation or random chance. Complexity in life has evolved (most certainly NOT just random chance) over billions of years. I’m not going to make the case here (against the rules ) but know that there is a huge body of evidence supporting evolution (here’s a good introductory pdf from the National Academy of Science).

As far as abiogenesis goes, every amino acid needed for life has been created in experiments simulating the probable conditions billions of years ago. Granted we don’t know exactly how life arose, but claiming God is just an argument from ignorance.

thegrons:

Now what the athiest is left with is a logical possibility. Consider that it is logically possible that I flap my arms and fly to the sun for a BBQ and then get back home for a night cap. This too is possible but most would call me a nut for proposing such a scenario; but this is exactly what you do when you take the odds of the universe evolving from nothing by mere chance.

I’ll just ignore this bit.

thegrons:

So as you see, as a man of reason, I chose to believe in the great “watchmaker” and find the design argument too compelling. Don’t bother with Hume’s attack on it either, his attack on this argument was wildly tenuous at best.

Here is a pretty good refutation of the design argument.
Quick summary of problems with design argument -

• Relies on drawing an explicit analogy between the products of human design and items found in the natural world
• We know have a plausible explanation other than intelligent design for the complexity in nature
• Why do we infer only one designer? In nature we often see designs working at opposing forces (bacteria and immune system, cheetah and gazelle)
• Built on special pleading

 

[thegrons]

1. I read your long list of ostensible issues in the bible and every single one has a reasonable and logical explaination. I am not going to address any here; however, if you take issue with “a couple” of them I will answer your questions.
2. Atheism is a belief system. All knowledge is a JTB the “b” standing for belief. Atheism is a worldview that requires faith in some transcendental propositions that are not subject to verification - hence belief. It demands that we believe that there is no God, it demands that we will find some day a natualistic explaination of consciousness, emotions, morals, sub-sub-sub-sub…atomic particles. It demands that some day we will be able to reconcile how the world can be as old as atheists claim it is when the sun which burns at 6" in diameter an hour didn’t consume the world only a short few billion years ago and how the sun didn’t “suck” the earth into itself with its gravitational field being as large as it was several million years ago. Atheism demands that I have faith in proteins and amio acids magically mutating billions of times to give us human beings that have minds, the ability to procreate…all of this without a speck of fossil evidence of any evolution. I can wax on but for sake of time I will assume that you got the point.
3. If you know set theory, then you will understand why an actual infinte can only exist conceptually. Imagine taking an escalator to the second floor and you are steping exactly as fast as the stairs are movoing in the opposite direction…
4. I am not creating a false dilemma between randomness and design; I am saying randomness is an absurd explaination to the origin of the universe - forget the design argument for this statement! Secondly I look at my automobile and have never saw it being built, yet I (and you) will reason that my car did not evolve, it didn’t evolve because we see purpose and complexity within its nature. An archeologist finds a broken piece of pottery and assumes that since it has a little design to it that it must be the remains of an ancient civilization (abduction). Another scientist finds a strand of DNA, which contains more information than an entire library…he baducts that this evolved from nothing. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS STORY?
5. God is not an explaination for ignorance for He has revealed to us a lot. Yet His bible is only a partial revelation and not intended as a complete book of science. The bible is for instruction in salvation and living a fruitful life; I wouldn’t expect to find an explaination as to what subsumes sub-sub-sub atomic particles.

I would like to know how a naturalist can even justify anything such as the laws of logic or any law of nature since the naturalist denies the sublime or shall I say the abstract. Yet we all acknowledge laws; and in order for these propositions to be nomic they must be universal and necessary and these cannot be explained by the atheist. To say that “matter has intrinsic behavior” and that is why electrons circle protons… is no answer but a plea of ignorance. You don’t know the intrinsic nature of matter. At least the theist has an explaination of natural law viz.they reflect the thinking of God and the design He imposes on the universe.

Well, if you have you favorite 2 or 3 biblical contradictions - throw them at me; but again, I read your list and it is nothing new to me. None of this issues raised cannot be defeated.

Cheers