The terrifying thought of no afterlife

[Achronos]

Atheists also have no moral or objective basis for their argumentation and its logical end is based upon nihilism, and as I said before if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself. I know this because I was once an atheist.

Using that logic, this statement is also completely true:

I was a Christian once; I was an asshole; therefore, all Christians are assholes.

Infallible, impeccable, irrefutable evidence that all Christians are assholes.

Asshole.

Yet Christians have moral and objective basis for their argumentation, and its logical end is love.

Atheists have no basis for the above, and your 'logical' statement misses the point but I'm not surprised.

[Gawen]

PH you have to understand I am arguing for a transcendental being in terms of goodness and badness; without an appeal to a transcendental presence good and bad are moot.

The Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) fails. Achronos is arguing for the transcendental argument for good and bad [through god} which, also fails.

Yet Christians have moral and objective basis for their argumentation, and its logical end is love.

Atheists have no basis for the above, and your 'logical' statement misses the point but I'm not surprised.

Heh...check you out.
First, Christian theology has no logic. Well, it's logic...but badly used bad logic.
Secondly, Christian theology based on the bible is not 'love' based.
Thirdly, all people have a moral base, both subjective and objective. A Christian's moral base is neither as they are, ironically, puppets of a non existent god whose morals are ancient goat herder morals.

[Persimmon Hamster]

PH you have to understand I am arguing for a transcendental being in terms of goodness and badness; without an appeal to a transcendental presence good and bad are moot.

What you were arguing, originally, was that you preferred to be safe with respect to the afterlife (Pascal's Wager).  Believe in God and obey, because if he exists, better safe than sorry.

Thump asked the general question, what if you have the wrong religion?  As an alternative, he threw out a polytheistic example.

You then began to argue against all polytheistic religions in general.  Apparently you though this would be a sufficient defense against the general question (hint: it's not).  So, you claimed there must obviously be a single, higher God by which the lesser "gods" would be measured.  As part of this claim, you stated that "existence, intelligence, and will are in themselves good" (and made some pretty absurd statements about how, given that, evil is a "parasite" because it requires these 3 attributes to function).

If in fact you are wrong, and those 3 attributes are not intrinsically good, nothing you said would be coherent.  Your argument would fall apart.  Thump asked you to demonstrate why we should accept that statement.  He asked you to do so without reference to this ultimate God making the rules, because to do so quite obviously makes the argument circular.

You've just shown & admitted that you can't do that.  So we're left with an entirely circular argument as to why there is 1 God: yours.  Is that your final submission on the matter?  If so I don't expect many will find you the winner of that debate.

Here's a flashback to the argument from page 6:
[spoiler:5c5uvamt]

This does nothing to address my objection at all:  what if you have the wrong god?  What if the Norse sagas have it right and you get doomed because you are a peace-loving Christian?

Those gods would be what I consider to be humanist gods rather than the all encompassing God. There are a few issues regarding the existence of 2 or more gods. For example two gods are supposed to be quite independent and they both existed from eternity. Neither of them made the other, neither of them has any more right than the other to call itself God. Each presumably thinks it is good and thinks the other is bad. Either we are merely saying that we happen to prefer the one to the other, like preferring beer to Coke, or else we are saying that, whatever the two (more more) powers think about it, and whichever we humans, at the moment, happen to like, one of them is actually wrong, actually mistaken, it regarding itself as good. Now if we mean merely that we happen to prefer the first, then we must give up talking about good and evil at all. For good means what you ought to prefer quite regardless of what you happen to like at any given moment. If 'being good' meant simply joining the side you happened to fancy, for no real reason, then good would not deserve to be called good. So we must mean that one of the two powers is actually wrong and the other is actually right.

But the moment you say that, you are putting into the universe a third thing in addition to two powers: some law or standard or rule of good which one of the powers conforms to and the other fails to conform to. But since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is farther back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God. In fact, what we meant by calling them good and bad turns out to be that one of them is in a right relation to the real ultimate God and the other in a wrong relation to Him.

To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the good 'god': even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent. And do you now begin to see why Christianity has always said that the devil is a fallen angel? That is not a mere story for children, it is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. The powers which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by goodness. All the things which enable a bad man to be effectively bad are in themselves good things like resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself.

After all said and done I must ask you what other god could you propose of that fits the very definition of what a God is? If there was such a God that did, I would not be a Christian.

[/spoiler:5c5uvamt]

[Achronos]

Well I was wrong in using Pascal's Wager in a negative light. How do I know I don't have the wrong religion, because Christ has risen.

"If Christ is risen - then nothing else matters. And if Christ is not risen - then nothing else matters." - Jaroslav Pelikan

I could very well argue for the existence of the Resurrection of Christ without appealing to a Church or Scriptures. Knowing that I do believe the Resurrection occured, then all other religions are wrong. God's full revelation to us is His begotten Son Jesus Christ. I became a Christian (well an Orthodox one) by investigating the Resurrection.

I was primarily convinced about the possibility of its historicity from a presentation given by Dr. Gary Habermas.  He took an approach I had never encountered before, what he called a "Minimal Facts" approach.  What he did was only allow those parts of his argument that would be granted by the majority of scholars who have studied the subject over the last 30 years.  In other words, only those things which no scholar could rightly reject.  They had to meet rigorous standards such as multiple, independent attestation, enemy attestation, early sources and eyewitness testimony.  The main 5 things that meet these criteria were: that Jesus died by crucifixion, Jesus' disciples believed they had seen him risen from the dead, Saul of Tarsus was suddenly changed and converted, the skeptic and brother of Jesus, James, had also been suddenly changed and converted, and the tomb where Jesus was buried was indeed found to be empty.

He then supported these assertions with verifiable historical data without appealing to Church authority or the inspiration of the New Testament.  At this point in my inquiry, this was a big help!

So from there I jumped into more detailed and researched works, an important one of which was "The Resurrection of the Son of God" by N.T. Wright, a very thick and detailed work.

As I continued to read and think through these things I became convinced that the Resurrection was indeed the only possible explanation for the historical phenomena that we can reasonably confirm.  Being open to this eventually led me to study further the early church as N.T. Wright proposed two questions that I didn't have the answers to:  Why did Christianity start, and why did it take the shape that it took? And it was here that I encountered Orthodoxy for the first time. I can also say that in historical terms that the testimony was so powerful to 12 men (the Apostles) and in the lives of others that became the foundation of an entire civilization.

In the Orthodox perspective, Heaven and Hell are basically our choice to the experience of God - how we are prepared for the vision of God which all people are going to have. We are all saved, whethere we believe in Christ or not, how we choose to experience this vision of God will determine whether or not we are going to spend eternity in Hell or in Heaven. They are both a state of existence. Heaven is when you are prepared for the vision of God, that experience of God. Hell is when you are not prepared for it. It's something everyone will have. We are being warned by God that "I love you all equally, I cannot withold my love from you. Prepare yourselves for that love." This God of Wrath and Punishment and throwing people into Hell and rewarding others is completely alien to the Orthodox Church.

[Persimmon Hamster]

I could very well argue for the existence of the Resurrection of Christ without appealing to a Church or Scriptures. Knowing that I do believe the Resurrection occured, then all other religions are wrong. God's full revelation to us is His begotten Son Jesus Christ. I became a Christian (well an Orthodox one) by investigating the Resurrection.

Does this mean you would now like to debate the resurrection, exchanging one circular argument for another?  If so, I'm sure I and others can oblige.

[Achronos]

The three attributes which I raised ultimately must be used by a trandescendant being, as I stated I am arguing for it, in my opinion. I cannot argue why those three are good on their own terms without appealing to such a trandescendant being. But I am sure someone could argue those three attributes as being good without appealing to God, unfourtantley I do not have knowledge in everything (although would like to!)

Even taken that statement back further, I would have to argue the case for such a trandescendant being and if we were really to get into it, 2000 years of theological and philosophical debates would simply disagree with you.

The Resurrection is a circular argument? How so?

[Persimmon Hamster]

But I am sure someone could argue those three attributes as being good without appealing to God, unfourtantley I do not have knowledge in everything (although would like to!)

Someone could try.  They would fail.

The Resurrection is a circular argument? How so?

For starters, you will ultimately rely on a non-verifiable interpretation of scripture to justify your interpretation of scripture.

[Achronos]

Did you miss the part where I said there is verifiable historical data that does not appeal to the Church or the New Testament?

[Achronos]

To try and veer this back on topic, has anyone here researched much on Near Death Experiences? In some cases involve people reporting verifiable things that happened a distance away, but after they were pronounced dead and lying where they couldn't see these things physically. Others have correctly described a variety of things even while they had no heart beat, no brain waves, etc. This tells me that people seem to live even while their bodies are "dead" and that sometimes they are capable of observing things even while their bodies are incapacitated.

[Davin]

To try and veer this back on topic, has anyone here researched much on Near Death Experiences? In some cases involve people reporting verifiable things that happened a distance away, but after they were pronounced dead and lying where they couldn't see these things physically. Others have correctly described a variety of things even while they had no heart beat, no brain waves, etc. This tells me that people seem to live even while their bodies are "dead" and that sometimes they are capable of observing things even while their bodies are incapacitated.

Must have been different evidence than what I've come across, perhaps you could provide the studies that have shown this?

[Stevil]

Yet Christians have moral and objective basis for their argumentation, and its logical end is love.

Hello Achronos,

I have no intent to prove that your God does not exist as I cannot prove it. I am not going to spend time reading the literature you are pointing out as I know as yet there is no conclusive proof that your God exists.

What I am interested in is your statement with regards to the logical end of love you have stated with regards to Christians. With this in mind can you please tell me your stance on the following:

Recreational sex
Contraception
Premarital sex
Divorce
Homosexual intercourse
People that perform homosexual intercourse
Euthanasia
Women equality within the Church (let's face it, the top positions are only going to men)

[Achronos]

Davin, I'll bring up some studies here in just a moment but before PH responds I would like to bring out the following:

I would like to recommend three books related to the historical Jesus topic that helped me a lot in my own journey, since this was a big issue for me as well.

The first is "The Case for Christ" wherein an ex-atheist Chicago Tribune journalist tells the story of how his investigations on the historicity of the facts in the Gospel led him to become a believer. Basically he was astonished by the fact that his wife had converted. He knew she was an intelligent woman and couldn't even conceive that an intelligent person could be Christian. The fact that she was becoming even sharper and more intelligent just increased his curiosity that there could be more to it than he imagined. He then used his contacts to talk to some authorities in historical, archeological and other areas of study to enquire about the issue. The good thing is that the book touches all the basic questions related to the historicity of the Gospels and even provides bibliography to study each topic further.

The second book that helped me was "Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost its Way". The topic here is more restricted, focusing on the historical value of the Gospels and the historiography surrounding them. Basically, it shows how the fringe historical studies of biased minor groups with vested interests is presented by the great media as the status quo on Jesus historical study whilst the real scientific consensus lies far closer to traditional expectations (that the Gospels were written within the life time of the Apostles, if not by them directly at least by first generation disciples registering their narratives).  

The third is my personal favorite  "The Resurrection Of The Son Of God" which to me is a masterwork on the Resurrection and perhaps the definitive work on the Resurection. It remains obvious to me that the 1st century Christians really did believe the Resurrection occured and explains the legitmacy of the empty tomb.

Another thing that you may be interested is the criticism of much of the mentality of the modern age that prevents us from even studying these topics in a unbiased way. To have a better perspective on that I would recommend the following books:

C.S. Lewis "Abolition of Man" and "Mere Christianity"
René Girard "The Scapegoat"
Fr. Seraphim Rose "Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age"

Also, about dealing with post-modern mentality, I recommend the following online articles by and about the Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho:

What is Miracle?
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/ ... le_en.html

The Structure of the Revolutionary Mind
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/ ... _mind.html

How to read the Bible
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/ ... jb_en.html

The Revolutionary Mentality
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/ ... dc_en.html

More on the Revolutionary Mentality
http://www.theinteramerican.org/comment ... ality.html

The Revolutionary Inversion in Action
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/ ... dc_en.html

The Collective Imbecille
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/imbecile.htm

The Juvenile Imbecille
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoe ... becile.htm

Truth and Pretext
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/pretext.htm

Apeirokalia
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/apeiroeng.htm

Metaphysics and the Fundamentals of Objectuality
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoe ... uality.htm

The Problem of Truth and the Truth of the Problem
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/truth.htm

Descartes and the psychology of doubt
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/doubt.htm

Philosophy is not for the timid
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoe ... ytimid.htm

Epicurus and Marx
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/epicurus.htm

The Naïveté of the Smart
http://www.philosophyseminar.com/texts/ ... smart.html
* Although not directly related, I recommend this article in consideration of the studies of the historical Jesus because it explains a lot of the mentality behind the "debunking" many "historical" studies claim to perform today.

Living Free of Guilt
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/ ... 3jt_en.htm

[Achronos]

To try and veer this back on topic, has anyone here researched much on Near Death Experiences? In some cases involve people reporting verifiable things that happened a distance away, but after they were pronounced dead and lying where they couldn't see these things physically. Others have correctly described a variety of things even while they had no heart beat, no brain waves, etc. This tells me that people seem to live even while their bodies are "dead" and that sometimes they are capable of observing things even while their bodies are incapacitated.

Must have been different evidence than what I've come across, perhaps you could provide the studies that have shown this?

I encourage you to check out the following books:

The latest edition of Beyond Death by Dr. Gary Habermas with JP Moreland http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Death-Expl ... 750&sr=8-1

Negative critiques seldom ever address the evidential aspects of NDEs. For one that at least makes the attempt, see British psychologist Susan Blackmore, Dying to Live: Near Death Experiences . http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Live-Experi ... 907&sr=1-1

In regards to the above book, again Habermas claims that we do have at least some of the evidence that she required, however I do not have an online version of the essay. If I do find it, I'll be sure to give it to you Davin.

From one of the top medical researchers over the last 25 years: Michael Sabom, Light & Death: One Doctor's Fascinating account of Near-Death Experiences. (He also had an earlier highly-acclaimed volume, Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation.) http://www.amazon.com/Light-Death-Micha ... 124&sr=1-3

Sabom also wrote recently a two-part article where he shares some of his conclusions on NDEs: "The Shadow of Death," parts one & two. Also he discusses it in Christian context. http://www.equip.org/articles/the-shadow-of-death

A critical response by a University of Washington Medical School professor: If I Should Wake Before I Die: The Biblical and Medical Truth about Near- Death Experiences. http://www.amazon.com/Should-Wake-Befor ... 308&sr=1-1

Although it is a popular account, prominent New Testament scholar Graham Tweltree tells about his own NDE in: Life after Death http://www.amazon.com/Life-After-Death- ... =1-1-spell

Although it is older, I assume you have seen the often-reprinted article by well- known naturalistic philosopher A.J. Ayer, "What I Saw when I was Dead," http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-conten ... s-Dead.pdf

[Davin]

To try and veer this back on topic, has anyone here researched much on Near Death Experiences? In some cases involve people reporting verifiable things that happened a distance away, but after they were pronounced dead and lying where they couldn't see these things physically. Others have correctly described a variety of things even while they had no heart beat, no brain waves, etc. This tells me that people seem to live even while their bodies are "dead" and that sometimes they are capable of observing things even while their bodies are incapacitated.

Must have been different evidence than what I've come across, perhaps you could provide the studies that have shown this?

I encourage you to check out the following books:


[spam]

There is hardly anything that rubs me the wrong way... when you're asked to provide evidence, it is your responsibility to vet that evidence to make sure it's both relevant and accurate. You did not.

You stated "In some cases involve people reporting verifiable things that happened a distance away, but after they were pronounced dead and lying where they couldn't see these things physically." Which cases?

"Others have correctly described a variety of things even while they had no heart beat, no brain waves, etc." Provide these cases.

"Others have correctly described a variety of things even while they had no heart beat, no brain waves, etc." I'd be curious to know how one could describe anything while brain dead.

Do: Provide scientific studies for NDEs that support your claims.

Don't: Spam a bunch links to things that don't even claim to be more than speculations and personal testimonies.

[Gawen]

Strobel is a crackpot. I'll show you why when I get home tonight.