(Part 2) Best products from r/ReasonableFaith

> I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but I think there's a step you're missing there. You begin the construction of a chair one piece of wood at a time. At the beginning you have just the one piece of wood, half-way through you have a bunch of pieces of wood sort of arranged like a chair, and at the end you have a fully-formed chair. At what point did the chair "begin to exist"? When the architect first thought of it? When the first piece of wood was set? When the last piece of wood was set?

It does not matter if the process of beginning to exist is gradual, that is beside the point. All that matters is if something does not begin to exist, then it either exists eternally or does not exist.

> Another big problem with the Kalam as proposed by Craig is that he does not specify whether the cause is the material cause, the efficient cause, the formal cause, or the final cause.

Craig has responded to this objection simply by saying it is not a problem. Whether beginning to exist requires a cause of any type is all that matters. While I think Dr. Craig would likely appeal to God being the efficient cause, the lack of specification of the type of cause does not refute whether or not at least one cause of some type is needed.

> I would like to ask what things there are, that do not begin to exist. It creates the uncomfortable situation where a person either admits that there are things other than God which did not begin to exist (numbers, say), and which then by extension do not rely on God as a necessary being, OR they are forced into admitting that apart from God there is nothing that does not begin to exist, admitting that premise 1 is special pleading.

Craig would argue a form of fictionalism, that platonic hosts do not exist (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVoXs4qQIl8), although there are other options like divine conceptualism. I agree, the issue of God and Abstract Objects is a difficult one, but it is not insuperable. This is an excellent book on the topic if you ever have the time - http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Control-God-Bloomsbury-Philosophy/dp/1623563658

Finally, the reason why it is not special pleading is because the Kalam does leave open the door for platonic objects. In his discourse, Craig clearly notes that Abstract Objects or an unembodied mind could potentially serve as the answer, but abstract objects fail because they are causally impotent. He does not use the Kalam to show that abstract objects do not exist. So the argument is not special pleading.

The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright is the best one, though keep in mind it is over 700 pages. It is highly respected and compelling, even among non-Christian, critical Bible scholars.

A completely separate argument (though more easily summarized) is Gary Habermas' "Minimal Fact" argument, where he argues using only historical facts agreed upon nearly unanimously by critical Bible scholars (including skeptics and secular historians.)

A more general book about the historical reliability of the Gospel narratives is Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham. Keep in mind this is also lengthy and academic in nature.

The best summary of these arguments I've come across is in chapters 7 and 13 of The Reason for God by Timothy Keller. This is the book that turned my faith around. He's also great at citations and includes a very helpful annotated bibliography.

TL;DR - Everyone should read The Reason for God by Tim Keller.

I would encourage you to get a copy of How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth

They contend that one must first understand what a text meant - what the original authors meant to convey to their original readers - before one can say what it means today and what application it has now. They explain the differences among the genres and how it effects ones understanding, interpretation and application. For example Psalms need to be heard as poetry that was spoken to God. Looking for a plot in Proverbs is useless. As the say every reader of the Bible is in reality an interpreter of sorts. The only real question is whether you will be a good one.

But Fee and Stuart don't just advocate for an academic understanding of the Bible as they also encourage devotional reading with a view to putting into effect God's will in the life of the reader.

Here is a PDF copy of the 2nd edition

> I'm not dismissing eyewitness testimony completely, but to make an extraordinary claim, you should have extraordinary evidence,

This is both special pleading, AND self refuting. This is basically saying "well if I want to prove something I only have to get this much, but you have to do this much." It is also completely arbitrary on what crosses the line into "extraordinary claim". This claim is of itself a extraordinary claim, it holds to all claims ever held, which means you need extraordinary evidence. This is regurgitated to the point that I just want to vomit every time I hear it. Its a copout that people hear used by the popular neo atheists, and its high time its thrown out the window.


>There are many people throughout history who have claimed or have been claimed to do miracles. If you're going to tell me that they're all fake miracles but that Jesus' miracles were true, you need to provide extraordinary evidence of that.

Again, that assumes all the claims are equally backed, which they are not. There is no case such as the case of Christianity in the entire history of world in regards to historical reliability and support.

>But to start, if you want to list some supporting documents of Jesus' miracles, I'd love to see them. I was under the impression that he wasn't written about until a few decades after his death.

You have the 22 documents which have been complied into the new testaent, along with various others by people such as Tacitus, Pliny the younger, and other non christian sources.


>I was under the impression that he wasn't written about until a few decades after his death.


The earliest document we have is written 15-25 years after jesus's death, and that is a grand slam in ancient history. To have something that close to when it occured is absolutly remarkable. The earliest we have written on alexande the great is 400 or so years after his death. Plato, socrates, aristotle and many other historical figures have hundreds to thousands of years to the NT 15. Not to mention that due to the overwhelming amount of manuscripts the bible is LITERALLY the most accurate ancient historical document we have. It ranks at 99.5% accuracy with around 5000-6000 texts, the second best is the Iliad with 95% accuracy and 600 or so texts.

>Here's why "intelligent" design is bad: if someone designed us, he obviously didn't use his intelligence!

This is a ridiculous argument, EVEN IF the designer was just not capable of making us any better than we are, that doesn't refute intelligent design. Thats like saying " my car breaks down sometimes, therefor its not designed" But to throw out things such as sickness and disease as a argument on God not being able to make us better is to be ignorant of or just ignore basic christian theology.Basic christian theology is that in the beginning there where no problems, there was no pain or suffering, but because adam sinned pain and death entered the world. This is such a silly and flawed argument it takes every ounce of my being to not slam my head against the wall.

>ID is so obviously wrong that until you prove that God exists by some other method, it's not even worth considering.

Provide a argument.

>Whether you call it evolution or "things change over time", it's OBVIOUS that things change and adapt to their surroundings. The only things in question are those such as HOW, WHY, or HOW QUICKLY.

Nobody debates change over time, we debate if that change over time is capable of producing what we have today.

>The alternative, that God just zapped things into existence (which we seem to know from a book which is demonstratively NOT a reliable source for information)

Getting really tired of the bald assertions, stop just throwing out things and make a argument.

>If evolution is also part of certain types of intelligent design, then you've merely added a layer of complexity which is completely unnecessary. I see no need to fit God into the gaps of knowledge. Oh look, god of the gaps argument. Lovely, that showed up again.

People think that God used evolution to create us. I have already addressed the issue with this "God of the gaps nonsense"


>The problem with the whole ID thing is that it's NOT science. So, what makes you think it belongs in the realm of scientific discussion?

sigh Bald assertion, even atheists disagree with you.While not a subscriber to ID, atheist Bradley Monton wrote a book defending ID as valid science. source

Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel recently released a book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False[36] , writing in ch1: "In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture... by the defenders of intelligent design. Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves. Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair."

Its very irritating to try and have a discussion with somebody who is just copy pasting from the likes of Dawkins and Matt Dilahunty. Please try to do something more than bald assertions and snide remarks.

>Christianity has "felt a blow" by the fact that it's simply not a scientific theory/fact...well,

NOTHING IN HISTORY IS CONSIDERED A SCIENTIFIC FACT. Christianity is a historical claim. "The Persian war has felt a blow because its not a scientific fact" <---- Thats how ridicuouls you sound. History is outside the realm odf science, we can not test and observe the writing of declaration of independence or the wars fought be Alexander the great.Scientisism is a failed position, but apparently you didn't get the memo.

>Of course I think one of the more immediately vital things would be the question of whether you can define existence or necessary existence into an object.

God by definition is a necessarily existing being.


> If it's possible that God does exist, then by definition, it's possible that God doesn't exist, and by that logic, he would not exist in all possible worlds

But you already admitted that he is possible, and therefor exists. If he exists then its not possible for him to not exist. So you can either backslide in your position of him being possible (which would be very intellectually dishonest) or you can just own up and accept it.

>which we define as "necessarily existing",

Parody's of the argument have been address and drove into the ground. trying to say a necessarily existing tiger for example can't work, because by definition a tiger is reliant and composed of matter.

>nothing useful about that being

It would show us that he exists, which is what I am contending.

>If anything, it would actually disprove the possibility of the Christian God, but as to HOW it does that would depend greatly on the beliefs of the individual.

Bald assertion.

>By the way, when I said "logic", I didn't mean "any logic you choose". If you're curious, I was thinking of the cosmological argument. I don't know if a necessary being exists, or if one is indeed possible, or indeed if we can define that a being exists before we KNOW if one exists.

I am using logic, specifically I was using modal logic, which is a branch of logic that is used to deal with possibilities.

>I don't see how I'm being hypocritical. I agree that we cannot prove those things with 100% certainty but at least for the sake of discussion there are some things that we just have to assume are true.

But yet you want the Christians to provide certainty, thus the hypocrisy.

>I don't recall asking for 100% proof anywhere.

You asked for certainty

> But no, haha, special pleading for Christianity? No, I would hold any religious beliefs to the same standards.

The issue is that you hold Christianity to a different standard then your other worldviews. Its funny actually, you won't apply Christianity to the same level of scrutiny as you do other historical claims, because that would mean you would have no excuse for rejecting it.

No translation can be perfect, and scholarly works dealing with biblical texts will often adapt their chosen translation as needed, if not translate everything afresh. That said, most experts consider the New Revised Standard Version to be the most accurate translation overall. The New Oxford Annotated Bible and the HarperCollins Study Bible augment this translation with excellent notes and introductions based on the latest scholarship.

Another translation of similar high quality, though often overlooked, is the New American Bible, Revised Edition. All editions of this translation include the same notes (which the copyright holder will not allow to be omitted), including online versions.

If the meaning of a particular verse is in question, it may be helpful to consult the New English Translation (NET) Bible, which features extensive, detailed notes explaining the translators' choices, with references to relevant scholarly literature.

A word of caution about one highly popular translation: the New International Version contains numerous highly questionable translation choices with no basis in the text in order to smooth over difficulties for Evangelical doctrine. My favourite example, until it was taken out in a recent revision, was the verse where Jesus calls the mustard grain "the smallest of all seeds," which the NIV rendered "the smallest of all your seeds" to make Jesus imply that he knows better due to divine knowledge of botany. Others would include the softening of a comparison between man and other animals in Ecclesiastes 3:18, presumably to exorcise the spectre of Darwinism; 2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Kings 4:26 are quietly made to match up with other parts of the Bible; and the terrible prospect of salvation after death is eliminated from 1 Peter 4:6 with language that makes clear that when the author wrote that the gospel was preached "even to the dead," he really meant that even some people who are now dead heard the gospel while they were alive. There's a lot of subtle monkey business with the vocabulary to preempt non-Evangelical interpretations. The same Greek word is correctly translated "tradition" wherever it appears in a negative context, but "teaching" wherever it appears in a positive context. Similarly, the doctrine of justification by faith alone is shored up by translating the same word "works" wherever it appears in a negative context and "deeds" wherever it appears in a positive context. Many more examples could be cited.

Thomas V. Morris has written some interesting stuff. I particularly enjoyed his book on Blaise Pascal. Making Sense of it All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life.

Also, James K.A. Smith has done some really interesting work on christianity and postmodernism. You should check him out.

I’ve heard Ravi Zacharias talk about people he has met. One guy in a Muslim country dreamed about Jesus every night for 7 years and told his mother. She told him to flee the country because his brothers would kill him if they found out. He went to England, met a Christian, and asked him who he was dreaming about. He accepted Christ and stopped having those dreams. Ravi mentioned a book in one of his talks, but I don’t remember what it is called. I found this book while looking for it. I haven’t read it, but I may add it to the list!


A missionary from Afghanistan came to my church last year and she told a story she knew about. A couple of guys were going to Mecca so they could experience God only to have the bus-driver tell them they couldn’t go and left them. Then they went to someone’s house who had a picture of the bus driver on the wall. They asked the man how he knew the bus driver. It was a picture of Jesus.


I’m in the US, but I personally know two people who became Christians because they saw Jesus (one is now a missionary and the other is my neighbor) and my mom heard a local pastor talk about how he and his other friends in the car all saw Jesus at the same time in the car with them and became Christians (they were on drugs, so who knows). I don’t necessarily believe every story I hear, but these “visions” have caused drastic changes in some of their lives and also been met with seriously challenges as a result of their faith (such as my missionary friend).

This essay has been around a long time. I think it was the first thing of Alvin Plantinga's I ever read. It introduced me to a radically different way of thinking about belief in God.

Right now, I am about 90% through his 2011 book Where the Conflict Really Lies. I'm too lazy to find the exact quote, but in it he claims that there is a division among theistic philosophers, or maybe it was more specifically Christian philosophers: Some, like Plantinga, maintain that there is inadquate 'evidence' to justify belief in God on evidentialist grounds, but that belief nonetheless can be justified for someone based on the sensus divinitatis, while others (Richard Swinburne chief among them, he says) maintain that we do have adequate evidence to show that God exists.

Edit: I was wrong. I found the quote and it was not as I remembered.

Just got into it myself, I am reading Always Ready: Directions fo Defending the Faith: Greg Bahnsen
you can see a lecture from Brahnsen here this all comes from Cornelius Van Til but they expand on it. There is also a full class worth of lectures here, I will give a full outline and references page once I fully wrap my head around it.

But this is quite a different school of thought than the evidential kind and I think Plantinga is trying to meld the two.

Besides being extremely familiar with what the Bible cites about people, this world, etc. The only other I book I can recommend with any confidence is Van Till's writings by Greg Bahnsen.

I can tell you this much, with a full understanding of Van Til's apologetic you should never be intimidated again by any worldview you come across.

http://www.amazon.com/Van-Tils-Apologetic-Greg-Bahnsen/dp/0875520987/ref=la_B001KCWMKI_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393992422&sr=1-1

• How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, by Bart D. Ehrman, HarperOne (March 25, 2014)
  
  Specifically, Chapter 4. The Resurrection of Jesus: What We Cannot Know, and Chapter 5. The Resurrection of Jesus: What We Can Know.
  
  Why this recommendation? To better support the resurrection, it is prudent to have an idea of the criticisms against the resurrection to prepare preemptive counter-apologetics.

I haven't read any of those you linked but I remember really appreciating Lord or Legend