I'd like to hear an explanation to any of these questions without referencing the bible. For those of us that don't believe I the inerrancy of that Bronze-aged text, it would be refreshing.

Christian View

The Christian Perspective

You want an authoritative Christian answer that doesn't appeal to Christianity's authority?

Interesting idea. Let me think on it for a little bit...

Hmmm...

No.

(Deuteronomy 6:6-9; Joshua 1:8, 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; Psalm 1:2; Proverbs 7:1; Matthew 4:4-10; Mark 12:24; Luke 1:3, 10:26, 11:28, 16:29, 24:27; John 21:24; Acts 17:11, 18:28; 1 Corinthians 2:13, 14:37; Ephesians 6:17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 4:12; 2 Peter 1:21; Revelation 1:3, 22:19)

Comments

If Christianity, like Islam could survive philosophically without it's own book's support, (like Islam doesn't need the Quran to validate it, pure logic innate in every human will prove it), then you would have no problem answering matters of Christianity without relying on the Bible.

Also I thank the questioner for asking this important question: Prove Christianity philosophically, where there are no assumptions, not theologically where you have assumptions; not everyone is convinced about the Bible, after all.

— Moe

Why do you think that "pure logic" is reliable? What justifies your reliance on "pure logic"? How do you know that any truth can be derived via "pure logic"?

— Timothy McCabe

Simply because there are things in the universe known as immutable truths. And so any philosophical argument builds off on those because in that instance both sides agree to the immutable truths.

For example pure logic would say"no man is taller than himself" Deny that. Or argue against it. You cannot. Another example is with truth can exist without falsehood, but the lie cannot sustain itself without the truth. For example the statement "I always speak the truth" can very well be true without need of falsehood. "I rarely lie" has some falsehood to it, but it is still true. "I always lie" can not be true, for if it is true, he did not lie in uttering that statement. So truth is an independent entity.

Logic and Reason are tools by which mankind must ascertain the realities. So prove your religion using immutable truths, aka philosophically. Not with assumptions that the Bible is correct or this is not. Convince me, if you cannot, ask if you have got yourself convinced

— Moe

You see, for the Muslim, the questioning atheist is a blessing from God. The atheist isn't going to accept our religious texts when we say "Oh the Quran says God exists" he can just retort that he does not believe in it's authenticity.

We must use rationality, reason, logic and all of these tools, in order to convince them. So it's a test from God saying, if you really believe in me, defend yourself against the atheist and see if you understand the concept fully. When I go on the block and debate the big name atheists, I hope they find my flaws, and expose me good. That way I can go back and study more, and research more. So far they have not, by God's grace.

So for the purpose of this discussion, pretend that I am an atheist. Please convince me about the God of Christianity.

— Moe

"Immutable truths" don't stand on their own two feet. We are only justified in holding to them if our Creator and their Master tells us we are justified in so doing.

But, to the substance of your concern rather than getting sidetracked into a discussion of epistemology, we can easily demonstrate to the atheist that atheism is false using his own presuppositions rather than those of Christianity. The same can be said of polytheism. This is part of standard presuppositional apologetics (Proverbs 26:4-5), and I have presented deductive arguments here:

http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=431

...and...

http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=424

[continued]

— Timothy McCabe

[continued]

This deductively necessitates a general monotheism, which you and I would both assert. Of course, you personally also assert logical contradictions regarding man's will. If you read my second link immediately above, the same argument I use against atheism works against your view: the will of man changes over time; since time began, the will of man began; it therefore must be caused; whatever caused it must be eternal and personal, and loosely omnipotent.

Translation: God caused you to make the decisions you make. As long as you deny this, your views are deductively untenable, unreasonable, illogical, and irrational.

God bless.

— Timothy McCabe

That's precisely why they are called immutable truths, because they do stand on their own two feet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutable_truth

I read both of your links, and I don't need to be convinced of the rational absurdities of atheism. I need you to give me positive philosophical arguments, as I requested last time, for the evidence of the beliefs of Christianity (trinity, original sin, divinity of Jesus) and again since it's philosophical you can not use scriptures.

And before I continue the previous debate of free will, you still never apologized for your allegation that the Quran makes the case against free will, which I debunked.

Now, as for free will,
P1) We know God is all-good.

P2) Because God is all-good, he can never commit anything evil.

P3) God is absolute so he never makes mistakes

P4) Evil exists, we know people make mistakes and commit acts of evil.

So who's doing it?

C1) Since God is incapable of doing any evil or mistakes, It is not God. (P1, P2, P3)

— Moe

P4) God is not forcing humans to do the evil in the world (P1, P2, P3, P4, C1)

C1) Free Will exists

— Moe

Moe,

"Immutable truths" justify knowledge for us, you say. However, what justifies these "immutable truths" for us? In your view, they are self-justified, apparently meaning that God is unneccessary for us to have knowledge. In Christianity, they are God-justified, meaning that in the Christian perspective, knowledge is impossible apart from God.

Nonetheless, my routine across this website is twofold: (1) demonstrate the coherence of Christianity; (2) demonstrate the incoherence of non-Christianity. The former necessitates the quotation of scripture for its completion. The latter, of course, does not. But the full argument includes both pieces, not just the latter.

[continued]

— Timothy McCabe

[continued]

Please show me the error in the following argument demonstrating (2) the incoherence of Islam:

When the Qur'an was written, it claimed that [[A]] the current Christian scriptures were true (Quran 2:40-44, 2:89, 2:111, 3:93, 5:43-48, 5:68, 7:157, 10:94, 20:133, 26:196-197, 29:46, 53:36); [[B]] the teachings of Moses, Abraham, and Jesus are true (Quran 3:84, 5:43-48, 42:13, 53:36); [[C]] Muslims and Christians worship the same God (Quran 29:46).

Indeed, according to the Qur'an, the contemporary Christian scriptures ought to be used to test the revelations given to Muhammad to see if they are genuinely from God (Quran 10:94).

[continued]

— Timothy McCabe

[continued]

When these claims were made in the Qur'an (c. 600):

[[C]] the God worshipped by the Christians was Trinitarian including the divine Son, Jesus (Isaiah 9:6, 48:16-17; Matthew 1:23, 3:16-17; John 1; Luke 9:35, 20:44; Acts 13:13; Psalm 110:1; Colossians 1:16, 2:9; Romans 15:16; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Nicene Creed c. 431);

[[B]] Jesus had taught that God is Trinity (Matthew 28:18-20; John 14:9, 14:16-17, 14:26, 16:13), Jesus is divine (Matthew 28:18; Luke 19:38-40; John 8:58-59, 10:30-33, 14:6-7), and all men sin (Mark 10:18; Luke 11:13, 18:19);

[continued]

— Timothy McCabe

[continued]

[[A]] the Christian scriptures (undebatably established since c. 397 in the west and c. 508 in the east, unchanged for 100 years prior to the Qur'an) taught that God is Trinity (Isaiah 9:6, 48:16-17; Matthew 1:23, 3:16-17; John 1; Luke 9:35, 20:44; Acts 13:13; Psalm 110:1; Colossians 1:16, 2:9; Romans 15:16; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Matthew 28:18-20; John 14:9, 14:16-17, 14:26, 16:13, etc), Jesus is divine (Matthew 28:18; Luke 19:38-40; John 8:58-59, 10:30-33, 14:6-7, etc), and all men sin as a direct result of Adam (Luke 11:13; Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:22, etc).

[continued]

— Timothy McCabe

[continued]

So here is the argument:

P1. If the Qur'an is true, the Christian scriptures are true.

P2. If the Christian scriptures are true, the Qur'an is false.

C. If the Qur'an is true, the Qur'an is false.

Christianity, on the other hand, does not assert that if it is true, then it is false; in fact, if Christianity is true, then Christianity is true. It is the only worldview that can properly make that claim.

[continued]

— Timothy McCabe

[continued]

Your argument here for free will presents four initial premises I agree with, but the first conclusion does not follow from them. There is a world of difference between doing something (P2 and P3) and causing someone else to do something (C1). For example, if a man causes his dog to run, is the man running? Not if he has no legs and is in an automated wheelchair. In the same way, if God causes someone to sin, is God sinning? The answer is not necessarily yes. P2 and P3 say that God never does anything wrong. The conclusion, C1, is that therefore He never causes anyone else to do anything wrong. Your argument is not deductively valid since the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

"And before I continue the previous debate of free will, you still never apologized for your allegation that the Quran makes the case against free will, which I debunked."

I've responded at the original comment thread:

http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=451

— Timothy McCabe

I'd like to hear an explanation to any of these questions without referencing the bible. For those of us that don't believe I the inerrancy of that Bronze-aged text, it would be refreshing.

More Questions

Comments