The importance and relevance of faith to logic

[Verisimilitude]

Mirdath
I’ll try your question of more options than just Lord, liar, lunatic: Q; why they didn’t just get caught up in the ‘excitement’ of His ministry and went along with it after His death~ or other?

A; They could have of course but I don’t think they did and will use your apparent incorrect view of Islam as/and the reason it is wrong, to justify Jesus is divine. After reading all the posts here I am enlightened to your view in that even if Christ sat physically before you now you might still pass on worship if not acknowledgement.

No one, including Mohammed knew who was giving him revelations though it is assumed as Gabriel but the Quran does not say and the hadith identifies the spirit that spoke to Moses which is not widely regarded as being Gabriel. It frightened Mo and never identifies itself in the cave or elsewhere. Islam’s first and last martyr will die in the ignorance of Mohammed. Jesus knew when He was a child.

I think you said earlier you doubt the NT more than the Quran. If that is so, do you differentiate the inspiration of each; Koran and Gospels or reject them both equally?

Jesus had a 3 year ministry before being killed as a martyr and Mohammed had 23 years from first call to his death not as a martyr~ not slow poison over 3 years, he is rightfully denied the honor if you call it that. A day in the life of Jesus outshines the entire 23 years of revelation from Mohammed with hours to spare. Jesus’ message never changed, Mo’s changed constantly after fits and starts. From the very first call as much as 2-3 years go by without any new revelation and by the first 10 years he had maybe 300 followers. The Gospels talk of thousands believing in Jesus within the 3 years of His ministry.

At Mohammeds farewell rant it is understood by those listening to him that the charity he speaks about is intended only for them like a family while the non-Muslim was not family but to be guided to the ‘way of allah’ the same way it was brought to the Bedouin and small communities of Arabia who never declared war on Islam as Islam declared war on them. The last 10 years of Mohammeds life was the offensive military and then political leader.

It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim. (Book #019, Hadith #4366)

There was no incentive to be Christian as it was to be Muslim. Mohammed only took 20% of the booty and they Muslim warriors could split the rest. Converts were offered wealth and war which was desired and Mohammed said god allah approved. Christians were instructed by the Gospels to not seek riches and avoid violence and give 10% because the Church does not wage war for the community as Islam did/does.

For at least 200 years the growing Christian community spoke the Gospels and wrote them down but was truly persecuted by others/governments, a Mohammedan claim undeserved for his time in Mecca before fleeing to Medina. A boycott by merchants and going hungry with no reported deaths is nothing to being a human torch in a Roman garden at night or beheaded/hung on a cross in the center of Rome. And not just a few.

All the lipstick in the world won’t make Mo look better and Jesus doesn’t need any. Getting caught up in something explains Islam, but not Catholicism.

You speak of the supernatural being a reason to disbelieve the resurrection. Set it aside for a moment and look at the other miracles together with His wisdom as recorded in the Gospels to apply divinity. Moses spoke with authority from God. Jesus speaks with authority as God. The seas parted for Moses by God but Jesus walked on the sea and calmed them. Nature will obey God alone because God created nature and nature obeyed Jesus.

John 11 tells us how/why:

18"No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."

Metaphorically, if your shadow or reflection could separate itself from you and speak, how would it describe its relationship with you to others?

33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

Acts 1: 21"Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us–
22beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."

All that is left is for you to believe in God.

 

[TLDenmark]

Dear Mirdath

I am a little bewildered by your attempt too discredit the liar, lunatic or Lord Argument, in that you (nor does any of the other participants in this debate) never give an alternative to the 3 categories. Let me take them one by one, starting with the alternatives proposed by you and ending with the supposed alien alternative.

**1. Someone who believes they are god **

Unless he truly is God, he would have to be a lunatic to believe something like that.

**2. Someone who wants to lead a life as a powerful figure **

It is certainly possible, such thoughts can be found among many of history’s cult leaders, but does seem out of character given his self-sacrifice and apparent lack of worldly ambitions. Also it belongs in the liar category, and as such it doesn’t alter the point made by the liar, lunatic or Lord line of reasoning.

**3. Someone who wants a lot of money **

This too seems out of place with Jesus lack of worldly ambitions, and it would place Jesus in the liar category.

**4. Someone who wants excitement **

Sound unlikely for a poor first century Jew (boredom being more of a rich mans problem), but I guess it is possible. However if it was true, it would make him a lying lunatic.

**5 Someone who doesn’t want the Jewish religion continued **

Given the obvious care he takes to follow Jewish rules and prophecies, that does seems to be unlikely. Anyhow setting himself up as God to manipulate the Jews out of existence, would undoubtedly make him a liar.

**6 Someone who wants revenge against the romans/jews **

Given the way he treats Romans and discourage violence, I would say that this is a very unlikely possibility. Also this would yet again turn him into a liar.

**7. Jesus as an alien believing himself to be God **

Would not be any different from a human thinking he was God, and thus be a creative yet similar situation as option 1 (Making him a lunatic).

**8. Jesus as an alien purposely fooling others into believing he was God **

Would place him firmly within the liar category, even thou it would make him a rather unusual liar .

It is clear that you have so far failed in discrediting Lewis 3 categories, and thus it can be said that his basic argument stands as well. Now I will say that there is at least one more category, Jesus as being a partly or fully fictional character. However such a possibility would only turn him into the creation of mad men or liars, and as such do nothing to discredit Lewis original point about the foolishness of the secular attempt at painting Jesus as a good human teacher. Either he is the Lord (thus much more than a human teacher), or he is the product of lies and/or madness (thus neither good nor trustworthy).

As for the reliability of the martyrs of the early church, I will agree that as a rule martyrdom is not a proof of anything else but the martyr’s honest conviction. So in itself, the existence of Christian martyrs says very little about the truthfulness of the religion. The same can be said about Muslim or Buddhist martyrs, their act doesn’t rule out the possibility of them being no more than honest fools believing in an untrue religion.

However the disciples and their immediate followers were not just martyrs, they were martyrs with an incredible message. The difficult problem is not to explain why they died because of their belief in a new religion (that is not particular unusual), but rather that they died claiming the truth of the resurrection. Jesus had been tortured, crucified, stabbed, declared dead and buried, with only one disciple and a few mourning woman remaining at his side. At that moment, his flock was spread and the future of Christianity seemed bleaker than ever. However according to the disciples themselves, something impossible happened. The tomb of Christ was opened, and Christ appeared once again in the flesh. This event changed everything for the 11 disciples; suddenly they regained their faith and started converting the world in the name of the resurrected Lord. It was a unique claim and an equal unique turning point in history, with a rather large bunch of eyewitnesses ready to attest to the event trough their own martyrdom. The argument goes something like this:

Argument 1:
Premise 1.1: Nobody likes to be martyred in the name of a lie.
Premise 1.2: The disciples were close to the events happening, and would have known if the resurrection were true or false.
Half conclusion: If the resurrection was a lie, the disciples would not have verified its truth if the consequence were martyrdom.
Premise 1.3: The disciples were in fact martyred for their belief in the resurrected Christ.
Conclusion: The resurrection did in fact happen.

The argument can then be continued along the following lines:

Argument 2:
Premise 2.1: It takes extraordinary proof to believe in a man that is claiming to be a divinity.
Premise 2.2: Jesus claimed to be divine.
Half conclusion: It takes extraordinary proof to believe in the claims made by Jesus.
Premise 2.3. A man being resurrected from the dead is a rather extraordinary proof.
Premise 2.4. According to the conclusion to argument 1., the resurrection did in fact happen in the case of Jesus.
Conclusion: Jesus claims about his divinity are believable.

That is basically how the argument goes, and it is in my view not a bad argument at all. Truthfully some of the premises can be debated, and you have already contested premise 1.2, and some of the arguments might need to be expanded upon, so it is not a “proof” in any strict sense of the word. Also it should be noted that such an argument can not exist in an isolated bubble, you have to place it in a larger context. Among this is the truthfulness of the many other claims made by Christ and His disciples, how well the claims fits in with the other things we know and experience, etc. Anyhow despite of such reservations, I do personally find the argument to be both convincing and unique.

I will finish with a question for you (and others if they like). Earlier you said that the Christian claim about the resurrection was untrustworthy because it defies our scientific knowledge of nature, and because it was one lonely event. However the experience of the supernatural and the miraculous, is a rather common and often recorded phenomenon throughout human history. Whether it is people who think they have seen ghosts or the much better documented miracles being used in a catholic canonization process, it raises questions. So let me ask you, how do you as an agnostic/atheist deal with such phenomenon’s?

God bless you
TL

 

[Mirdath]

I am a little bewildered by your attempt too discredit the liar, lunatic or Lord Argument, in that you (nor does any of the other participants in this debate) never give an alternative to the 3 categories.

Uh, I did do just that, and it isn’t one of your options either.

However the disciples and their immediate followers were not just martyrs, they were martyrs with an incredible message.

So were the Muslim and Buddhist martyrs.

Argument 1:
Premise 1.1: Nobody likes to be martyred in the name of a lie.
Premise 1.2: The disciples were close to the events happening, and would have known if the resurrection were true or false.
Half conclusion: If the resurrection was a lie, the disciples would not have verified its truth if the consequence were martyrdom.
Premise 1.3: The disciples were in fact martyred for their belief in the resurrected Christ.
Conclusion: The resurrection did in fact happen.

1.2 is not necessarily true (how often are people ‘close to events’ which turn out to be different from how they think they are? Just find someone with a cheating spouse and you’ll hear all about it!), and your conclusion does not follow. All that can be concluded is that the apostles believed the resurrection happened, which I have never contradicted.

Argument 2:
Premise 2.1: It takes extraordinary proof to believe in a man that is claiming to be a divinity.
Premise 2.2: Jesus claimed to be divine.
Half conclusion: It takes extraordinary proof to believe in the claims made by Jesus.
Premise 2.3. A man being resurrected from the dead is a rather extraordinary proof.
Premise 2.4. According to the conclusion to argument 1., the resurrection did in fact happen in the case of Jesus.
Conclusion: Jesus claims about his divinity are believable.

2.3 is proof of what, exactly? If accepted at face value, all it proves is that something kinda weird is happening, not that God is involved. Beyond that, since you rely on the non sequitur conclusion of your first argument, it falls apart anyway.

Earlier you said that the Christian claim about the resurrection was untrustworthy because it defies our scientific knowledge of nature, and because it was one lonely event. However the experience of the supernatural and the miraculous, is a rather common and often recorded phenomenon throughout human history. Whether it is people who think they have seen ghosts or the much better documented miracles being used in a catholic canonization process, it raises questions. So let me ask you, how do you as an agnostic/atheist deal with such phenomenon’s?

When it comes to miracles I really don’t so much ‘deal with it’ as ‘smile, nod, and let the nice people natter on about whatever it is’. I don’t need to deal with it because I’m not the one who has to prove that strange happenings are caused by divine intervention, not merely some quirk of nature we haven’t yet nailed down.

 

[TLDenmark]

Dear Mirdath

Uh, I did do just that, and it isn’t one of your options either.

Apparently I was a little to fast in sending my reply, writing “you” when I should have written “Fishstick”:. Sorry about that, but my point do however still stand. Concerning you own option, are you referring to the “Jesus being caught up in His own legend” theory. That is not plausible, mostly because Jesus was the one creating His own legend. Right from the beginning of His short ministry, He sat himself up as the Jewish messiah. In itself that could either be considered megalomania, a rather unsympathetic form of madness, or a deliberate attempt at manipulation, thus a lie. From then on Jesus gets even more controversial, setting Himself up as a miracle worker and equal to God. It is not something other people do for Him, in fact the opposite is true of His often bewildered flock, so your theory doesn’t add up. Whatever Jesus truly was (is), He was not someone being caught up in a legend that He did not seek. So I would say that Lewis point still stands, it is illogical to see Jesus as being merely a good teacher.

So were the Muslim and Buddhist martyrs.

No not really, they never claimed to be eye witnesses to something like the resurrection.

1.2 is not necessarily true (how often are people ‘close to events’ which turn out to be different from how they think they are? Just find someone with a cheating spouse and you’ll hear all about it!), and your conclusion does not follow. All that can be concluded is that the apostles believed the resurrection happened, which I have never contradicted.

I would claim that the conclusion does follow from the premises, as long as the premises are true. If you disagree, I would like to hear why that is the case.

As for premise 1.2, you seem to be going out of your way to explain away the straightforward testimony of the witnesses. There can be no doubt that Jesus was dead, yet the disciples claimed that they kept meeting him at numerous occasions. During these meetings they claimed to have talked with him, dined with him and touched him, sometimes in the presence of other people. The resurrection was not just one evening of madness due to stress, but rather a drawn out event witnessed by more people than the 11. So in the light of the nature of their claims about the resurrection, your theory simply does not add up.

2.3 is proof of what, exactly? If accepted at face value, all it proves is that something kinda weird is happening, not that God is involved. Beyond that, since you rely on the non sequitur conclusion of your first argument, it falls apart anyway.

If a man can raise himself and others from the dead, he gains a lot of credibility in the God business. By showing such authority over the laws of physics, I for one am ready to listen to what the man had to say. Then again, some people will never be satisfied unless God steps into the world in all His glory.

When it comes to miracles I really don’t so much ‘deal with it’ as ‘smile, nod, and let the nice people natter on about whatever it is’. I don’t need to deal with it because I’m not the one who has to prove that strange happenings are caused by divine intervention, not merely some quirk of nature we haven’t yet nailed down.

That is an interesting answer, considering that it is coming from somebody that is participating in a discussion about religion. Anyhow you do realise that any real form of certainty is impossible in human life, and that indecision is usually a much worse (as in risky and unprofitable) choice than to dare make a possibly erroneous decisions based on imperfect evidence.

God bless you
TL

 

[Mirdath]

Apparently I was a little to fast in sending my reply, writing “you” when I should have written “Fishstick”:. Sorry about that, but my point do however still stand. Concerning you own option, are you referring to the “Jesus being caught up in His own legend” theory. That is not plausible, mostly because Jesus was the one creating His own legend. Right from the beginning of His short ministry, He sat himself up as the Jewish messiah.

The Jewish Messiah is not exactly God. Jesus sure wasn’t what the Jews were expecting. As for ‘creating his own legend’, that could have been the case, yes, but that doesn’t in any way make the man himself any more than human. People get in things over their heads all of their own accord all the time.

So I would say that Lewis point still stands, it is illogical to see Jesus as being merely a good teacher.

Did I ever say that? He was a good teacher, and much more – a great orator, a literate scholar, and probably one of the most charismatic figures ever produced by humankind. But God? Where’s that have to come in?

No not really, they never claimed to be eye witnesses to something like the resurrection.

You do realize Muhammad supposedly worked miracles as well, yes? To the point of ascending to heaven, even.

I would claim that the conclusion does follow from the premises, as long as the premises are true. If you disagree, I would like to hear why that is the case.

I believe I explained my problems with your premises in the section you quoted.

As for premise 1.2, you seem to be going out of your way to explain away the straightforward testimony of the witnesses.

No, I’m just taking human weakness into account.

There can be no doubt that Jesus was dead, yet the disciples claimed that they kept meeting him at numerous occasions. During these meetings they claimed to have talked with him, dined with him and touched him, sometimes in the presence of other people. The resurrection was not just one evening of madness due to stress, but rather a drawn out event witnessed by more people than the 11. So in the light of the nature of their claims about the resurrection, your theory simply does not add up.

Sure there can be doubt. Over a billion people doubt it right now, and that’s only counting the Muslims! Of course, they say someone else died in Jesus’ stead, but then I’d love to see you pull out official Roman documentation asserting that it really was Yeshua bar-Joseph of Nazareth who showed his ox-cart driver’s license, gave his mother’s maiden name, and got stuck up on a tree.

If one does not accept the claim that it was not really Jesus who died on Calvary, yes, as I’ve said before, the Romans were really good at making sure people were dead (the Latin tongue has over a dozen words for ‘kill’ last I counted). But even Longinus was not infallible, and there may be more and stranger things to the story – that yet do not require divine intervention. Can you demonstrate that only God can raise a seemingly-dead person? I doubt it – human surgeons do it all the time.

Then again, some people will never be satisfied unless God steps into the world in all His glory.

I’d settle for a little bit of glory. Let me put my finger through the hand of the Christ, and I will believe.

That is an interesting answer, considering that it is coming from somebody that is participating in a discussion about religion. Anyhow you do realise that any real form of certainty is impossible in human life, and that indecision is usually a much worse (as in risky and unprofitable) choice than to dare make a possibly erroneous decisions based on imperfect evidence.

Cogito, ergo sum. I’m completely sure of that. You, I can’t be so sure of, it’s true – but I accept that you exist out of convenience. Sure it’s inexact, but the solipsists can go jump in a lake. I work with what I have. But I see no need at all to bring God into this; how has the divine been demonstrated necessary? Until that is done, I will side with William of Occam.

 

[TLDenmark]

Dear Mirdath

The Jewish Messiah is not exactly God.

No that part comes a little later in His ministry, but His self professed Messiah-hood is all one needs to make Lewis argument work.

Jesus sure wasn’t what the Jews were expecting. As for ‘creating his own legend’, that could have been the case, yes, but that doesn’t in any way make the man himself any more than human. People get in things over their heads all of their own accord all the time.

The liar, lunatic or Lord line of reason, does not necessitate that Jesus is in fact more than human. Rather it postulate that he is either a liar (a bad human being), a lunatic (a crazy human being) or the Lord (more than human), thus ruling out the possibility of Him being a good human teacher. Either Jesus is a despicable and/or sad person, or He is in fact who He claims to be (God).

Did I ever say that? He was a good teacher, and much more – a great orator, a literate scholar, and probably one of the most charismatic figures ever produced by humankind. But God? Where’s that have to come in?

Hitler was a great and charismatic orator, and every bit as literate as a 1st century carpenter from Judea. The ability to inspire, does in no way equate goodness. The point is that Jesus played God, making Him either God (He is telling the truth) or vile (he is a manipulative lying bastard) or miserable (a crazy lunatic, believing that he is God). The point of the argument is not to prove that He is God, but rather to show the fallacy of the secular view of Jesus as the good human teacher.

You do realize Muhammad supposedly worked miracles as well, yes? To the point of ascending to heaven, even.

Nobody witnessed Mohammad’s little trip to heaven, and nobody died claiming that they did.

I believe I explained my problems with your premises in the section you quoted.

Ok, it just seemed like you claimed that I had made a logical fallacy (different from a logical argument based on false premises).

No, I’m just taking human weakness into account.

No, you are theorising in a way that are completely unsupported by the witnesses to the event. It reminds me a little of Marxist historical theory, where everything is forced into some preconceived notion of materialist class struggles. In your case, the problem is however a God avoidance syndrome .

Sure there can be doubt. Over a billion people doubt it right now, and that’s only counting the Muslims! Of course, they say someone else died in Jesus’ stead, but then I’d love to see you pull out official Roman documentation asserting that it really was Yeshua bar-Joseph of Nazareth who showed his ox-cart driver’s license, gave his mother’s maiden name, and got stuck up on a tree.

If one does not accept the claim that it was not really Jesus who died on Calvary, yes, as I’ve said before, the Romans were really good at making sure people were dead (the Latin tongue has over a dozen words for ‘kill’ last I counted). But even Longinus was not infallible, and there may be more and stranger things to the story – that yet do not require divine intervention.

I think you are smart enough to distinguish between different claims, so that you are able to give more trust to eyewitnesses rather than somebody coming along hundred of years later. Also as I stated in my earlier post, there is nothing in this world than can not be doubted if one truly wants to do so. The question is if it is particular rational to doubt that a man died after being tortured, crucified, stabbed in the heart and buried for days without water (mind you, this is in a country with desert climate), or to believe that He could be replaced even thou the acts was witnessed by the people knowing him best (the same people who died claiming the truth of His death and resurrection).

I’d settle for a little bit of glory. Let me put my finger through the hand of the Christ, and I will believe.

Maybe He will give you the chance one day. As for me, I tend to think that answers come to the people who are actually ready to search for them. The saying that “luck favours the bold” is as true in this case as in other cases.

Can you demonstrate that only God can raise a seemingly-dead person? I doubt it – human surgeons do it all the time.

I can demonstrate that modern surgeons are not able to bring back a man that has been dead for days, nor are they able to bring back a man that has been tortured, crucified and stabbed in the heart. Together with other things (from prophecies to personal experience), the resurrection is more than enough for me. But as I said earlier, some people will never be satisfied.

Cogito, ergo sum. I’m completely sure of that. You, I can’t be so sure of, it’s true – but I accept that you exist out of convenience. Sure it’s inexact, but the solipsists can go jump in a lake. I work with what I have. But I see no need at all to bring God into this; how has the divine been demonstrated necessary? Until that is done, I will side with William of Occam.

How do you know that “your” thoughts are not simply a part of a computer simulation, thus making the “I” into something false and none existing? Even “Cogito, ergo sum” can be doubted in a number of ways, if one chooses to do so. However the ability to question something does not make it rational to suspend ones belief/trust in its existence.

As for William of Ockham, he was a Franciscan friar who would not have agreed with your use of his idea (an idea that he partly based on theological considerations). Also to remove God from the intellectual universe is in fact to end up with a more complicated and less encompassing world view, your answer to my miracle question is a good indication of this. Thus it can be said that Occam’s razor are not the best method to question religion.

God bless you
TL

 

[Mirdath]

The liar, lunatic or Lord line of reason, does not necessitate that Jesus is in fact more than human.

If you stick to the first two legs of it, yeah. The ‘full’ trilemma requires the possibility that he is more than human.

Hitler was a great and charismatic orator, and every bit as literate as a 1st century carpenter from Judea. The ability to inspire, does in no way equate goodness.

Never said otherwise. And Hitler’s made just about the same size waves that Jesus did.

The point is that Jesus played God, making Him either God (He is telling the truth) or vile (he is a manipulative lying bastard) or miserable (a crazy lunatic, believing that he is God). The point of the argument is not to prove that He is God, but rather to show the fallacy of the secular view of Jesus as the good human teacher.

But it does not do that, because it self-limits itself to a ridiculous degree and does not admit any possibilities beyond the ones that make it safe and reassuring for the faithful.

Nobody witnessed Mohammad’s little trip to heaven, and nobody died claiming that they did.

But they witnessed other miracles he performed (even though he himself thought the only miracle he worked was bringing the Quran), such as splitting the moon and so on, and died claiming their faith in his teachings just as the martyred apostles did.

Ok, it just seemed like you claimed that I had made a logical fallacy (different from a logical argument based on false premises).

Actually you got a twofer – bad premises, and a non sequitur conclusion in #1.

No, you are theorising in a way that are completely unsupported by the witnesses to the event. It reminds me a little of Marxist historical theory, where everything is forced into some preconceived notion of materialist class struggles. In your case, the problem is however a God avoidance syndrome .

I’m not avoiding God, God just doesn’t seem to want to call me. If he’s omniscient, he knows my number.

Interesting that you, who stick to your guns on the trilemma only having three possibilities, accuse me of trying to shoehorn everything into ‘preconceived notions’. Check out your own preconceptions!

The question is if it is particular rational to doubt that a man died after being tortured, crucified, stabbed in the heart and buried for days without water (mind you, this is in a country with desert climate), or to believe that He could be replaced even thou the acts was witnessed by the people knowing him best (the same people who died claiming the truth of His death and resurrection).

Like I’ve said, the Romans were good at what they did. I have no doubt at all that somebody died, quite likely Jesus of Nazareth. The death is not what I take issue with – it is the supposed resurrection.

Maybe He will give you the chance one day. As for me, I tend to think that answers come to the people who are actually ready to search for them. The saying that “luck favours the bold” is as true in this case as in other cases.

In general, yes, but here it’s like trying to find Schroedinger’s Cat. And luck may favor the bold, but it doesn’t often favor the bold and stupid. I’m reminded of a story my parents told me about a bus-driver in Africa, careering around narrow mountain roads at ludicrous speed without paying attention to driving, saying only ‘if it is the will of Allah that we shall crash, we shall crash; if not, we shall not!’.

How do you know that “your” thoughts are not simply a part of a computer simulation, thus making the “I” into something false and none existing? Even “Cogito, ergo sum” can be doubted in a number of ways, if one chooses to do so. However the ability to question something does not make it rational to suspend ones belief/trust in its existence.

Then I exist as a part of a computer simulation, but I still exist. The cogito is the A=A of epistemology. It cannot be doubted without throwing the very concept of existence out on its ear.

As for William of Ockham, he was a Franciscan friar who would not have agreed with your use of his idea (an idea that he partly based on theological considerations).

Let’s say there’s a reason he’s never going to be St William. He was one of the bad boys of philosophy, alongside Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Hume.

Also to remove God from the intellectual universe is in fact to end up with a more complicated and less encompassing world view, your answer to my miracle question is a good indication of this. Thus it can be said that Occam’s razor are not the best method to question religion.

It’s a pretty good one. The Razor does not merely say ‘simpler is better’ as many think, but rather that unnecessary variables are bad. God has not been demonstrated to be a necessary variable (and oh, what a variable it is!).

 

[Steve40]

Rather than disprove God, tell them it is easier to disprove logic. The perexistence of logic which in and of itself is a language, is not logical. All language must be created and implimented. Without the implementation of the creator or implimentation of those the creator of the language gave the language to, the language no longer has meaning.

Once they prove that logic could not have eternally existed, God must have existed since He is the One that created logic.

It is logical that the Creator of logic would have and Existence that is out side logic. Thee and One at the same time is not logical.

 

[holy_wood]

Rather than disprove God, tell them it is easier to disprove logic. The perexistence of logic which in and of itself is a language, is not logical. All language must be created and implimented. Without the implementation of the creator or implimentation of those the creator of the language gave the language to, the language no longer has meaning.

Once they prove that logic could not have eternally existed, God must have existed since He is the One that created logic.

It is logical that the Creator of logic would have and Existence that is out side logic. Thee and One at the same time is not logical.

You can’t disprove a negative.

 

[Steve40]

You can’t disprove a negative.

Alright let me re-word it in the positive. Once they prove that logic must positively have an origin they may worship that Origin as God and Creator.