From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Subject: Re: Do you have any children?
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:39:08 EST



Richard, it appears that nobody else is interested in this thread,
since there have been no other contributors.  But what the heck.

Since this is a long post, I'll summarize:

I claim that Richard's reasoning requires a huge leap in logic:

    There must be a God  =>  Jesus was God in the flesh

I attribute this amazing, blindfold leap to a circular belief system
(Bible is true because it says so, I know it's true because I know).

Richard responds more or less to the effect that "it is true, so
there."

The dance continues...


Richard writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.140826.9766@sei.cmu.edu> dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood) writes:
>>rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard.Pitts) writes:
>>>Before, I respond let me let you in on my view point.  
>>>I live my life daily with the help of God through the Holy Spirit's
>>>power and motivation.  The Word of God, the Bible, is a source of
>>>strength and insight to me, for I do believe it is God's word to
>>>us and that it is profitable for study and daily living.
>>
>>But of course, I know this, no need to point it out.  I'm happy for
>>you that you are happy with your belief system.  I mean that
>>sincerely.  However, surely you must realize, as I have tried to point
>>out repeatedly, that such a belief system is entirely closed and the
>>reasoning contained therein is circular.  In other words, the
>>reasoning is self-supported only.  I have summarized this belief
>>system previously by pointing out that all of the arguments amount to:
>>
>>1. The Bible is true because it says it is true.
>
>Yet, you seemed to delete my comments about the Apostles being 
>eye-witnesses and the recording of their thoughts.  


"Yet"?  "YET"????????

Richard, this is really unbelievable!  I just get done in the
paragraph above saying that all of your arguments are circular and
come down to "the Bible is true because it says it is true", and your
rebuttel is simply to make Biblical reference.  Is my writing that
incomprehesible, or what?

I say your basic assumption (Bible=truth) needs to be proven or at
least shown to be plausible.  Until you can do that, Biblical
reference is meaningless.

>If the persons are 
>dead, as happens today in court cases that need to be revisited, why 
>are the testimonies of those involved with Jesus discarded???

I'd say, if the dead witnesses of a murder gave testimony that the
killer was a giant green bean sprout, that most courts and juries
would more or less discount the testimony.  Your analogy to a modern
court weakens your case, it doesn't strenghthen it.  Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence, not testimony from dead
witnesses of physically impossible events.

On top of this, noone witnessed the holy impregnation and noone
witnessed the resurrection.  May I discard those Truths?  If so,
please explain the selective filter by which you disregard parts of
scripture.  Rather, I imagine your answer is that we know those events
are true because the Holy Spirit told the writers so.  If that is the
case, we don't need witnesses at all, we just need to believe whatever
happens to be written in the chosen canon.  If so what's the point of
discussing witnesses in the first place?

Further, the gospels weren't written by the witnesses.  You may care
to dispute this, but it should be a separate thread that I don't care
to follow at this point.  I don't want to lose site of the issue at
hand: do you have any evidence of the veracity of the Bible that is
not of the circular variety that I have previously mentioned?

>You aren't denying Jesus lived, but just denying that anything or most
>things recorded about him is inaccurate, correct?  

Given what we know about time, people, and our universe, I'd say that
in the absense of positive proof there is a high likelihood of a high
degree of inaccuracy, yes.  Do you have non-circular evidence to the
contrary?  A billion Muslims believe that Mohammed was the one true
supreme prophet.  Are you denying that "anything or most things
recorded about him is inaccurate", and if so, what is the basis for
your choice?  At least Mohammed wrote his own stuff directly.

>Some say that
>Jesus was just one of many messiahs of that time.  Why did his
>followers seem so convienced and so his name and acts live on today?
>Could it be that He was THE Messiah, THE Christ?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that Paul was smart enough
to export his cult outside of the closed Jewish society, where it took
root and flourished?

More circular reasoning.  This topic should (and has been) a thread by
itself.  In short, the existence of believers in something doesn't make
that thing true.  If so, you are fighting a losing battle, given that
many more people disbelieve in Jesus=God (among other Christian dogma)
than those who believe.

>Assuming for the discussion that the events did occur as recorded in 
>the Bible, how would you have wanted the people (the eye-witnesses) to
>have transmitted to others the information (the Truth) they encountered?

I am not willing to grant this assumption, as it renders further
discussion moot.  However, I submit that if they did occur, God should
have chosen a better vehicle for transmitting the information than the
flawed recordings and gross mistranslations that occurred long after
the fact.  Assuming that God has any wits (not to mention
omniscience), he would know that such "proof" would not be believed by
most people.

Extraordinary proof is needed.  For example:

1.  God embeds the knowledge directly into our brains.
2.  We uncover a pre-Jesus tablet containing a direct forward 
    reference to one Jesus of Nazereth who is to be God in the
    flesh, born of a virgin, crucified, resurrected, and ascend
    in corporeal form into heaven.  The attempts to show something
    similar to this via Old Testament scripture are, to be kind, weak.
3.  Show himself *directly* to us today, individually, without 
    requiring prima facia that we believe the unbelievable.

If God wanted to make the Jesus myth as unbelievable as possible, he
could not have done a much better job than what we have today - the
Bible.  Further, Jesus's Sales Force, namely foaming-at-the-mouth
fundamentalist Christians, are about as appealing as used Buick
dealers.  Surely, God can do better than this.

>>2. My beliefs are correct because I know they are correct
>>   (i.e., my personal "testimony" of faith).    
>
>Oh, I guess the effect something has had on my life cannot be
>submitted as evidence, correct?  

You can submit it, just don't expect me to fall on my knees as a result. 
If all you have to offer is:

1. The Bible is true because it says so;
and
2. I know it is true because I feel it in my heart (changed my life, etc.);

this is not sufficient to convert me and those like me.  I've repeated
this about ten times now, and you still don't seem to have gotten the
message.  You may not like this answer, but since God has given you a
direct order to bring me His Holy Word, I'm afraid that you just have to
deal with it.

>I believe the power that changed my life is evidence of the gospel,
>probably even more so than you believe your experiences point
>out the validity of your belief system.

Oh, I doubt it, but this is pretty hard to measure, isn't it?  It is
typical, however, for fundamentalist Christians (or any other
fundamentalists, for that matter) to assume that their experiences are
somehow more profound and valid than anyone else's.

>>Now, this is perfectly fine if you want to live your life based on
>>such premises, however this is grossly insufficient evidence to
>>convince someone like me to forgo my own belief system, with which it
>>is incompatible.
>
>In what ways is your system imcompatible?  

I should think that would be obvious by now.  The incompatibility lies
in the base necessity of fundamentalist Christianity that I dispense
with reason in order to believe it.

>Is it the great teachings
>of Jesus on how to live with God and man or what?  

No, not at all.  But Christianity has no lock on the Golden Rule.  I
pretty much subscribe to Thomas Jefferson's views on Jesus' teachings.

>>What is your
>>world view?  Don't give me something about it being above my
>>ability to comprehend, for some think we evangelicals are too
>>slow or something.

This is interesting, because not to long ago, I engaged in a long
netnews/ e-mail debate with Roderick Moten, a frothing evangelical
Christian, whose basic premise was that we heathens could not
comprehend what he had to offer, so why should he try to explain.  I
tried to get him to explain anyway, just to humor me, using small
words if at all possible.  Eventually, he gave up when I failed to
convert.  My guess is that he came to the realization that I could too
easily peel away at his rhetoric to expose the same basic circular
reasoning that you use.

I don't hold that you are unable to comprehend, however Christians do
seem *unwiling* to comprehend.  In contrast, I comprehend Christians very
well.

[Long irrelevent discussion of alternative belief systems deleted,
along with ample Biblical quotes, which I have requested not be
brought into the discussion due to their circular nature, apparently
to no avail.]

>>[On childbirth:]
>>
>>>|>|>Do you really think 
>>>|>|>that this event has nothing to do with the design of the Creator?  
>>>|>|
>>>|>|I really have no way of knowing, and neither do you.
>
>Here is where I think we started.  Should you have said "I don't 
>know and I really don't think you do either", instead of stating
>that neither of us has NO WAY of knowing?

You are really getting pedantic on this.  Unless shown otherwise (by a
miracle, for example), reason dictates that I live under the premise
that I have no way of knowing.

>>I would argue that the Bible is not a direct communication from God.  
>>Clearly it was written by human hands, indicating at the very least 
>>one step of indirection, and of course we all know there have been 
>>many, many more steps of indirection than that.  On top of this is the 
>>baseless assumption that the original inspiration was God in the first 
>>place.

[Most of response, replete with circular logic, deleted.]

>Why do you think this man zealous for Judaism turned and preached
>Jesus?  What reason did he have?  He even stated that he did this
>not for human reasons, but for God.

Interesting that this immediately follows and precedes my requests that
you come up with something better that circular logic:

>>If you are to claim otherwise and expect heathens like me to buy into
>>it, the burden of proof is on your side.  And again, saying that the
>>Bible is God's word because the Bible says so is not sufficient by a
>>long shot for heathens like me.  If your mission is to convert us, you
>>cannot succeed in this fashion.

Repeat: you cannot succeed in this fashion.

Besides, aren't you suspiscious of someone (Paul) who can so easily
re-direct his zealotry from one religion to another?  I suppose if he
lived another 500 years, he might have switched is zealotry to Islam.
Personally, I'd prefer to avoid zealots whenever possible, but to each
his own.

>Arguments from design and from the world around us are part of the
>reasons we believe.  See Acts 17 above.  It is statistically amazing 
>that we exist.  Even non-christians know or believe some things are
>constant (e.g. the laws of nature - physics.)  Some would argue we
>exist by virtue of how these laws work, yet, couldn't there be
>a force behind these laws?   Why are these things our only absolutes?

This is another thread, however you utterly fail to make the
connection between "couldn't there be a force behind these laws" and
"the Biblical explanation is correct".  We've rehashed this logical
leap several times now, and you still haven't addressed or explained
it.

Until you do so, you should refrain from equating those who find no
reason to believe the Jesus myth (me) from those who insist that there
is no god.

>>>God has given us knowledge and it is available to all who believe.
>>
>>"You must believe in order to believe" is merely a variant on the two
>>themes that I pointed out earlier.  It is circular and not even the
>>tiniest bit convincing to heathens like me.
>
>I'd agree that God responds to those who call on him and they must
>believe he exists.

Then your god is senseless, for it would seem that those who need his
attention most would be those that believe the least.  Further, it
would seem by your logic that he abandons those of us who make use of
something that he presumably gave us: the ability to reason.

>Into what areas do your beliefs extent? (i.e., do your beliefs only
>pertain to the natural physical world, such as laws of physics
>try to model?  Or do they also define what can happen, does happen,
>or doesn't happen in the spiritual or emotional world?)

Show me evidence of a "spiritual or emotional world".  How many other
fantasy worlds to you believe in, without proof or testability, and
why?  I don't deny the existence of any of these things, but I do deny
that you or I have any direct knowledge of whatever they might be, if
they do exist.  As I've said before, I am more humble before god than
true beleivers such as yourself.

Anyway, none of this is relevant.  You still have yet to show
(non-circular) evidence that your belief system is the correct one.
By attempting to bring my specific beliefs into the discussion, you
appear to be attempting to change the subject, and thereby avoid
addressing the basic flaw of your message, the jump from "god exists"
to "Jesus=God".

>>Is it possible for you to acknowledge the circular nature of your
>>argument?  Can you just admit: "yes, I acknowledge that my proof for
>>the veracity of the Bible as God's Word is the Bible itself, not from
>>a direct communication that I have with Him."
>
>The Bible is part of it, but the creation you and I live in is also
>part of it.  The fact that we even exist is part of it.

Are you saying that, absent the existence of the Bible, you would have
come to the conclusion that Jesus was god in the flesh, born of a
virgin, crucified, resurrected, and ascended corporeally into heaven?

Think about it, man!  The environment in which you live gives you
personal reason to believe in a creator.  Fine.  But, it gives you no
reason whatsoever to believe Christian dogma and the Jesus myth.
Those come only from the Bible and from mutual support among those who
already believe.  All of this is quite circular.
  
In light of the above, I repeat my challenge:

Can you just admit: "yes, I acknowledge that my proof for
the veracity of the Bible as God's Word is the Bible itself, not from
a direct communication that I have with Him."

If you can't admit this, then your faith is weak.  If you CAN admit
it, the foundations of your faith are weak, as they are based on
circular logic.  Either way, you're in some trouble in my view.

>>>Here I believe you misunderstand the power of God's Word in my life.
>>
>>No, I have not.  I understand it perfectly.
>
>It doesn't seem that you understand it "perfectly".  Maybe I have
>trouble with your use of words that are extreme, especially,
>when you apply them to my knowledge and your understanding of
>my knowlegde.

Here, you become pedantic again.  I understand your type perfectly
well in the sense that I know lots of evangelicals.  Some are in my
immediate family, others in my workplace.  I have also observed them
on TV and have read their books.  While their specific beliefs may
differ in a few details, they share a common weakness in the
foundations of their beliefs.  I've pointed out these weaknesses
to you repeatedly.

When I say I understand you perfectly, it means that you have followed
exactly the patterns that I would expect from this genre in your
responses to me.  They are highly predictable, and so far have brought
nothing new to the table.  If you can bring something fresh, then my
understanding would be a little less "perfect", and I'd have to
incorporate the fresh idea or toss it out if it has no merit.  That
hasn't happened yet in our dialogue.

Surely you don't think I've ever claimed absolute knowledge, when in
fact I have claimed less knowledge than you claim to have.  Surely you
don't prefer that I water down my responses when their meaning is
patently obvious.  Would you really prefer that I say:

"I understand it to a high degree based on what you have said, coupled
with my past experience with evangelicals, but given that I am not
omniscient, I realize that other realities such as those that you
describe, heretofore not revealed to me by a direct communication with
the creator, are among the infinite realm of possibilities; however I
choose not to credit that which is outside of our common reality
without the benefit of such direct communication."

Personally, I find "I understand it perfectly" to be much more succinct.

[More references to my supposed omniscience, deleted.]

>>[Banal discussion over Richard's motivations deleted.]
>
>Sorry for boring you, but I pray it was not in vain.

Your prayers have been answered, I am now excited!!  => God exists!!!  :)

>>Are you suggesting that I need not believe in all of these incredible
>>events?  If so, apparently I may pick and choose by arbitrary
>>standards which parts of the Book to believe.
>
>Coming to God, the Father, is only through Jesus the Son.  If we
>don't believe in Him (his eternal nature from long before his
>incarnation, his physical life, death, resurrection, and ascension)
>we would have no hope.  For if there is no resurrection, we have
>no hope and this requires a death and this requires a life and this
>requires a birth, which for Jesus was a virgin birth.

A stunning example of the power that doctrine and dogma have had on
your outlook on life.  Let's look more closely:

>Coming to God, the Father, is only through Jesus the Son.  

You haven't proven this by any stretch.  Still.

>If we
>don't believe in Him (his eternal nature from long before his
>incarnation, his physical life, death, resurrection, and ascension)
>we would have no hope.  

No hope for what?  I am full of hope for the possibilities of life:
mine, those of my children, and their descendents.  Do you mean hope
for eternal existence?  If so, no thanks!  I don't want it.  When I'm
dead, I'd just as soon be dead, thanks.  Is it the fear of eternal
death that drives you to believe what you do?  If true, how sad a
philosophy you hold.

Or by "no hope" do you refer to the concept of eternal damnation, that
we are doomed to eternal torture if we don't subscribe to Christian
dogma?  Aside from being a silly and unsupported way to run your life,
the thinking here is quite circular.

>For if there is no resurrection, we have
>no hope and this requires a death and this requires a life and this
>requires a birth, which for Jesus was a virgin birth.

(Sarcasm ON) Oh, that's clear. Thanks. (Sarcasm OFF)  This is the most
pathetic excuse for a life philosophy that I've ever seen.  I get more
sensible logic from my four-year-old than what you've said here.
Granted, she's exceptionally bright, but still...


>>Well, I have news for you: I have done so.  I find parts of the book
>>at least plausable, parts questionable, parts outright absurd.  I've
>
>I can understand this.
>
>>used my (presumably) God-given sense of reason to make personal
>>judgements on the matter, based on my own sense as well as on
>>scholarly and scientific evidence, and I'm at peace with the decisions
>>I've made.  If I'm to be toasted in the afterlife for using the brain
>>that God gave me, well, then I guess there's not much I can do about
>>that.
>
>Part of the afterlife has to do with one's deeds, 

How do you know this?  (Answer: The Bible: circular.)

>but part has to
>do with one's response to God's once and for all sacrifice for us,
>Jesus the Christ.  

How do you know this?  (Answer: The Bible: circular.)

>Only those who are righteous (justified) can
>be with God and man cannot merit this on his own, but only by
>Jesus death - only by Jesus' blood covering our deeds.

How do you know this?  (Answer: The Bible: circular.)

Further, I'm supposed to believe that a loving God would require the
brutal, tortured sacrifice of his own son in order to "save" me.  What
a barbaric philosophy.  No thanks.

>
>>>|You haven't even begun to make the case for birth pointing to a
>>>|Creator God, much less the more remarkable jump to Jesus=God and
>>>|Bible=Truth. 
>>>
>>>The Jesus=God and Bible=Truth all are the same to me.  
>>
>>It is refreshing to see such honesty, even when accompanied by the
>>failure to acknowledge the logical leaps involved.
>
>As you point out you own self, I believe, you aren't the one who can 
>give all the reasons for why the Bible is supposedly riddled with
>problems, and neither am I completely able to give you all
>the logical reasons for faith in Christ.  

But of course, as an evangelical and a believer in the extraordinary,
the burden of proof is on your side.  I don't have to give ANY reasons
for the myriad problems in the Bible, as the Bible is not the basis
for my beliefs.  I presume you see the difference between why you have 
explaining to do where I do not.

>Part of the work of God is our/my telling what I know - the big 
>part is the Holy Spirit of God doing the work.  God gives the 
>increase - not man.

"The Bible is true because it says so.  My views are right because I 
know they are."  Nothing new here.

>>I am not above any absolutes that I am aware of.  The only absolutes
>>that God has revealed to me are those of physics, and we're not even
>>too sure of what all of those are yet.
>
>Why do absolutes not exist in Spritual and moral matters, or do they?

Re-read my first sentence.

Interesting that you try to ping me for saying I have NO WAY of
knowing, when you claim knowledge of ABSOLUTE TRUTHS!  What makes you
think that your absolute truths as embodied in the Bible are not
illusions placed before you by God in order to test you to see if you
will believe what men tell you, rather than using the powers or
reasoning that He has provided you?

The only rational answer is to live according to the reality that we
have before us rather than an arbitrary one of an infinite number of
alternative realities.

>>On the correctness of my beliefs: they are correct only for me, and I
>>am content with them.  I'm also happy for you that you are content
>>with yours.  I think Jesus would have encouraged such tolerance, don't
>>you?
>
>Why can't there be some absolutes with respect to what is right
>in this area.  Or are you saying everything is right?  I doubt that.

The Golden Rule is a pretty good rule of thumb here.  In any case,
none of this in any way shows that your set of beliefs is the correct
one.  

You're the evangelical.  Prove your case.  You keep trying to turn the
table, to make me defend my beliefs, but I'm not going to let you get
away with it.  I'm not interested in converting Christians, I'm happy
letting them believe whatever they will.  You, on the other hand, wish
to convert us non-believers, so it is your beliefs that are under
scrutiny here.  You show me that your beliefs are at least plausible,
and then we can discuss my beliefs and draw some conclusions from the
comparison.  Until then, put up or shut up.

I repeat: You're the evangelical.  Prove your case.  Without circular
logic.

>>>If a miracle does happen one says
>>>"Oh that can't happen" and so one will deny or ignore it, for it 
>>>contradicts one's own assumptions.  Don't we rule out the Creator
>>>God's intervention into mankind by saying that miracles cannot occur?
>>
>>No.  My belief system is open.  I never said miracles CANNOT occur,
>>hence your assumptions are invalid.  In contrast, you believe that
>>miracles DID happen, and on a regular basis.  The burden of proof is
>>on you, not me.
>
>Sorry, I got the impression that you discounted some events recorded
>in the Bible, because the violated the understood laws of physics.

No problem.

>I believe that miracles did happen, but not at a high rate.  Jesus
>even pointed out from an OT example that there were many lepers 
>at a given time even in Israel, but only one, Namman, a Samrian,
>was healed of leperosy by the prophet.  

Aren't we lucky to have Pat Robertson and other modern fundamentalist
leaders who can heal vast multitudes of believers merely be smacking
them on the head, or squinting their eyes toward the camera.  I wonder
why Jesus healed only an occaisional believer (or non-believer for
that matter) when there surely were a vast number of suffering
believers available to be healed.  Let me guess: death (and entering
heaven) are the only true healings, and are available to all
believers.  But then, being healed on earth would actually be a
punishment, as it would prolong the time before the leper could shake
hands with the deity.  What a predicament!

>Miracles were not every
>day things, but they did occur and most times, if not always, they
>were used to point to God and confirm who Jesus was and not for man's
>enjoyment.

Entirely circular.  Provide extra-Biblical proof for any miracle:
flood, parting of Red Sea, death of firstborn Egyptians, walking on
water, corporeal ascension, resurrection, healings, feeding of
multitudes from almost nothing, talking bushes, pillars of fire, etc.
Put up or shut up.

Why do miracles occur throughout the Bible (old and new testaments)
but do not occur today?  Does God have less need to use them today?
Has a claim of the supernatural or paranormal ever been made that
could be verified and yet passed verification?  No?  Why not, is God
afraid that verification would reduce the number of confused people in
the world?  Does He prefer a state of chaos where people kill each
other in the names of each other's religion/God, when He could stop
all that by just letting us see proof that we could really KNOW which
way was the right one?

I want non-circular evidence.  Put up or shut up.

>Did I misunderstand?

I guess.  Show me non-circular, verifiable proof.  Just once, can a
true believer do this?

No?  Then why should I drop my reason, alter my belief system, and
believe what you say?  What makes your religion any more valid than
any other?  Put up or shut up.

>>I presume your followup post will proceed to tell how the Bible
>>contains ample proof (i.e., testimony) that the miracles described
>>therein actually happened.  To which I will have to point out the
>>circularity of the argument, and thus the dance will continue...

>Well what do you think?

You performed exactly as advertised.  Care to go for another round?

--Dave Wood