My favorite part about the acumulative case, is that it work both ways, the more non evidence and failed arguemnts there are for a god, the less convincend one becomes.
And therefore one's belief or disbelief is dependent upon one's own tenacity with which they explore the facts of the matter. This makes us perfectly culpable either direction. If we have the epistemic humility to admit that we are incredibly ignorant regarding the truths of the universe (a la Socrates - All I know is that I know nothing) we have almost no greater course of action than to humbly pursue the truth in as objective a manner as possible.
@@PastorTanner Sure, and that also work both ways, as in being humble and not pressuposing egotistical ideas like the universe being made for me, or that im made in the image of the creator of all, puts me in an objectively better position than otherwise. So yeah, i agree those sort of beliefs only hampers one ability to learn the truth.
You’ve identified particular beliefs that you believe are ‘hampering.’ My take is that it is not individual beliefs themselves that are hampering, but one’s ‘attachment’ to said beliefs. Beliefs often coalesce into particular worldviews. We can then wield those worldviews as a pair of glasses through which we examine the ‘facts.’ If we look at a particular fact (say for example the reality of christian apologetics as a field) we can then ask ourselves which ‘pair of glasses’ most clarifies/illuminates/makes sense of that fact. Each pair of glasses yields a different ‘take’ on the facts, but it does not make either pair of glasses any more hindering or helpful per se. What really is hindering is the tenacity to which the individual holds to their ‘favorite pair’ of glasses. Both Christians and Atheists are capable of being more or less tenacious in this regard.
I’ve felt for a long time now that the existence of apologetics as a discipline is itself an argument against the existence of a God. God is not evident, so one must argue to convince people that there actually is one. Consider furthermore that most apologetic arguments rely on logical fallacies, intuitive leaps, and/or presuppositions, rather than evidence, and I remain entirely unconvinced.
Some Christian movements have abandoned apologetics on exactly these grounds. They argue that belief or faith is something that is a gift and nobody can be 'argued' into it. However, I have been convinced of many things of which I was previously ignorant. The existence of apologetics might as easily be an argument for the ignorance of humanity.
Or for a God for whom the apologetic endeavor itself constitutes a maturing force in the individual's life. In this case, we would expect such a God to be discoverable only through apologetic effort.
@@PastorTanner That is just adding more and more conditions to a god that should be able to easily comunícate with humanity. That idea sounds more like an apologetic for apologism, than for a god.
Just because a worldview is complex doesn’t mean it is wrong. As far as ‘ease of communication’ goes, that isn’t even part of the equation for me. I’m not sure that even enters the top 50 of what I feel God is trying to do in the world. In fact it might even be actively opposed to his goals. I’d need to give it more thought.
What you believe is what you receive. This is observed in nueroscience that your perception helps to create your reality, being that our perceptions are the first filter we experience and interpret life through. However, this works for every person no matter what faith. All people from various different religious faiths get their prayers answers and their guidance fulfilled it has been observed by analysists, and not solely from any one particular religious faith only. The Law of Attraction is based in neuroscience. Your mind is an energy feld and responds to focus. Where you focus your attention creates brain connections. Quantum physics tells us that each of us generates energetic frequencies or vibrations. This natural phenomenon is exemplified in the activity of water dowsing and in the "spinning pendulum visualization" technique.
Neuroscience forms a substantial percentage of my content. I regularly include it in my sermons and I have several videos that speak to its application in Christianity.
if the goal of apologetics is to convert people then it's unclear why you'd consider any factor other than 1:43 "functionality" nobody becomes a christian because someone presuposes (or properly basically believes) that god exists
This is a good point, warpten. Many people also speak of apologetics as helping believers to be encouraged in their own already existing faith, but for most this us a secondary function
Here’s the thing. Y’all wouldn’t need apologist methods if there was actual proof for whichever god you’re advocating for. Says a lot. If you simply had proof it would end every debate once and for all. However, there is no proof which is why you’re left with being called an apologist and devising feeble debate tactics.
I’ve answered this in these comments, Tim. While that is a reasonable explanation for the reality of apologetics, it is certainly not the only one, and whether or not it is the most compelling is up for debate (subject of course to each individual’s nature/nurture/experience).
@@timg7627 I’m not sure we conceive of knowledge the same ways at all. Everyone has the same proof and evidence. The facts just ARE. The only question is which worldview best accounts for the proof/evidence. All worldviews are hypotheses subject to ‘conjectural fit’ tests. Does atheism or Christianity (or any other worldview for that matter) best accord with the reality we experience. I contend it is the latter whereas others may contend otherwise. That’s fine, but let’s not pretend that a particular view is more grounded in ‘evidence’ or ‘arguments’ than another. It simply isn’t the case.
@@PastorTanner yep utterly predictable response. You’re left with an argument in semantics attempting to define what facts and evidence are. Also you don’t know what the word atheism means as it holds no world view. Perhaps you’re unaware of the centuries of scientific repeatable verifiable data which validates many theories of biology, geology and evolution. On the flip side you have trust me bro this book says something and I feel it’s true.
@@timg7627 I'm not arguing semantics, I'm arguing epistemology. 'Trust me bro this book says something and I feel it's true' does not remotely represent the position I've espoused here. 'No worldview' is not a thing. Everyone has a worldview, no matter how consciously it is or is not adopted.
I'm not sure that's the case. What if God wants us to grow through precisely this means of deeper thought and reflection? That would adequately account for the current state of reality while also supporting the existence of God.
I’m not sure I would. I’m certainly not claiming certainty regarding God’s desires for self-disclosure. I was just thinking through your original statement, and it sounds something like this to me: Premise 1: IF God existed he would want to reveal himself blatantly to every human being Premise 2: God has NOT revealed himself blatantly to every human being Conclusion: therefore, God does not exist I’m simply taking issue with the first premise. I can imagine a universe in which God would not necessarily want to reveal himself blatantly to every human being. In fact, I believe it is the one we’re living in. If this were the case, then Apologetic method is a potentially worthwhile and worthy endeavor.
Firstly, according to the Bible, god does reveal himself blatantly to certain people, and then the rest of us are expected to believe what those people say. That's not fair. Secondly, I wouldn't have a problem with god wanting to make it difficult for us to find him were it not for the fact that the punishment for not finding him is eternal hellfire. @@PastorTanner
@@davepugh2519 That is why I formulated my first premise as ‘all people.’ If there is even one person to whom God is not ‘blatantly revealed’ then I believe your initial statement that ‘if God exists, none of this would be needed’ is false. For all people to whom God is not ‘blatantly revealed’ are in need of some sort of apologetic. In my experience, that number is a lot higher than 1. As to the fairness of the arrangement, I wasn’t answering that. If it is unfair, I suppose that should be taken up with God. I certainly don’t make the rules. As to your final point regarding hellfire and damnation, I’m not sure I see how that should preclude belief in God per se. Two potential solutions are available (among many others, these are just the two that came to mind) 1. Hellfire and damnation are inexcusable and we should add that to the list of things we should take up with God 2. God exists even though hellfire and damnation don’t. There are plenty of religions that posit a God without hellfire and damnation I suppose my problem is this. I was answering your claim about the existence of God when in reality your beef is with Christianity as a whole religious system. That’s fair, I’m a Christian pastor after all and ‘belief in God’ is often used as shorthand for ‘faith in Christianity.’ However, a defense of the entire Christian worldview is not what I set out to do in this comment section, and would probably take a lot more time, effort, and energy than either of us have available. I appreciate your comments and I hope this explanation makes at least some sense of my responses thus far. ❤ -tanner
I don't believe. You are welcome to practice on me if you dare. Ask me anything. My first question to you would be...is it possible that the Bible is fiction? I for sure am philosophically challenged. A yes or no answer is best.
Sure. For me we have two potential hypotheses (actually an infinite number, but for sake of current argument, two). Either: 1. The Bible is fiction 2. The Bible is fact Then I ask ‘given all that I know about the world, which is more likely? Which most accords with reality as I have experienced it?’ For me the answer is #2. So I operate as though it were the case until additional data causes me to operate differently. ^^^ this is overly simplistic, but it roughly aligns with my approach -tanner
When I was a youngster, learning that humans lie alot about everything and also missing out in the all important indoctrination as a child, I had no choice but to wait for personal confirmation of the supernatural. Not only nothing yet but I am now up to 99% sure it doesn't. Sooo I have no choice but to go with #1.
Fair enough. Now as with all hypotheses, I suggest you keep an open mind and adjust/adapt as you assimilate more information about the world and reality. Human beings know almost nothing about the universe, so new knowledge always has the potential to adjust our existing paradigms. I’ll commit to doing the same. God bless. -tanner
@@PastorTanner I would say the more we compare the world with the bible the more apart im from #2. Each time humanity that finds something in the bible didnt happen (like adam and eve story) or couldnt happen (like the flood or babel's tower fables) the more clear becomes that is #1. Also, the answer that 'is not supposed to be literal but metaphorical' doesnt work because then is not a fact (aka. #2) Of course, all of that was before i learned about burden of proof and how rationality works, which makes #2 more and more unlikely.
@@Julian0101 Meh. Burden of proof and rationality don't constitute the way human beings actually approach the world (irrespective of their espoused religious convictions). Human beings are impulsive creatures that readily latch onto what 'resonates' with them (Jonathan Haidt's 'The Righteous Mind' helped me here). Of course, developing stronger reasoning skills is certainly valuable, but these reasoning skills ought not to be limited by nominalistic presuppositions (as nearly everyone in the West - [Christians included] typically do). Garbage in, garbage out. There are different kinds of facts and spiritual facts are just as valid as material ones.
Very good video explaining these approaches and considering there strengths and challenges. Thank you!
10:17
Slight correction, Clark was not a successor of Van Til, he was a contemporary peer.
Very nice. Thanks, Jay. 👍
My favorite part about the acumulative case, is that it work both ways, the more non evidence and failed arguemnts there are for a god, the less convincend one becomes.
And therefore one's belief or disbelief is dependent upon one's own tenacity with which they explore the facts of the matter. This makes us perfectly culpable either direction. If we have the epistemic humility to admit that we are incredibly ignorant regarding the truths of the universe (a la Socrates - All I know is that I know nothing) we have almost no greater course of action than to humbly pursue the truth in as objective a manner as possible.
@@PastorTanner Sure, and that also work both ways, as in being humble and not pressuposing egotistical ideas like the universe being made for me, or that im made in the image of the creator of all, puts me in an objectively better position than otherwise.
So yeah, i agree those sort of beliefs only hampers one ability to learn the truth.
You’ve identified particular beliefs that you believe are ‘hampering.’ My take is that it is not individual beliefs themselves that are hampering, but one’s ‘attachment’ to said beliefs. Beliefs often coalesce into particular worldviews. We can then wield those worldviews as a pair of glasses through which we examine the ‘facts.’ If we look at a particular fact (say for example the reality of christian apologetics as a field) we can then ask ourselves which ‘pair of glasses’ most clarifies/illuminates/makes sense of that fact. Each pair of glasses yields a different ‘take’ on the facts, but it does not make either pair of glasses any more hindering or helpful per se. What really is hindering is the tenacity to which the individual holds to their ‘favorite pair’ of glasses. Both Christians and Atheists are capable of being more or less tenacious in this regard.
thanks for this vid PT good stuff
Thanks, Liam!
Great video! I’ve been looking for a video that summarizes all the apologetics approach in an introductory manner. Thank you.
Your wish is my command!
I’ve felt for a long time now that the existence of apologetics as a discipline is itself an argument against the existence of a God. God is not evident, so one must argue to convince people that there actually is one. Consider furthermore that most apologetic arguments rely on logical fallacies, intuitive leaps, and/or presuppositions, rather than evidence, and I remain entirely unconvinced.
It is a good (and amusing) point. But it only applies for the claims of gods that want to interact with humanity.
Some Christian movements have abandoned apologetics on exactly these grounds. They argue that belief or faith is something that is a gift and nobody can be 'argued' into it. However, I have been convinced of many things of which I was previously ignorant. The existence of apologetics might as easily be an argument for the ignorance of humanity.
Or for a God for whom the apologetic endeavor itself constitutes a maturing force in the individual's life. In this case, we would expect such a God to be discoverable only through apologetic effort.
@@PastorTanner That is just adding more and more conditions to a god that should be able to easily comunícate with humanity.
That idea sounds more like an apologetic for apologism, than for a god.
Just because a worldview is complex doesn’t mean it is wrong. As far as ‘ease of communication’ goes, that isn’t even part of the equation for me. I’m not sure that even enters the top 50 of what I feel God is trying to do in the world. In fact it might even be actively opposed to his goals. I’d need to give it more thought.
What you believe is what you receive. This is observed in nueroscience that your perception helps to create your reality, being that our perceptions are the first filter we experience and interpret life through.
However, this works for every person no matter what faith. All people from various different religious faiths get their prayers answers and their guidance fulfilled it has been observed by analysists, and not solely from any one particular religious faith only.
The Law of Attraction is based in neuroscience. Your mind is an energy feld and responds to focus. Where you focus your attention creates brain connections. Quantum physics tells us that each of us generates energetic frequencies or vibrations.
This natural phenomenon is exemplified in the activity of water dowsing and in the "spinning pendulum visualization" technique.
Neuroscience forms a substantial percentage of my content. I regularly include it in my sermons and I have several videos that speak to its application in Christianity.
if the goal of apologetics is to convert people then it's unclear why you'd consider any factor other than 1:43 "functionality"
nobody becomes a christian because someone presuposes (or properly basically believes) that god exists
This is a good point, warpten. Many people also speak of apologetics as helping believers to be encouraged in their own already existing faith, but for most this us a secondary function
Here’s the thing. Y’all wouldn’t need apologist methods if there was actual proof for whichever god you’re advocating for. Says a lot. If you simply had proof it would end every debate once and for all. However, there is no proof which is why you’re left with being called an apologist and devising feeble debate tactics.
I’ve answered this in these comments, Tim. While that is a reasonable explanation for the reality of apologetics, it is certainly not the only one, and whether or not it is the most compelling is up for debate (subject of course to each individual’s nature/nurture/experience).
@@PastorTanner exactly. You have no proof or evidence, just conjecture and arguments.
@@timg7627 I’m not sure we conceive of knowledge the same ways at all. Everyone has the same proof and evidence. The facts just ARE. The only question is which worldview best accounts for the proof/evidence. All worldviews are hypotheses subject to ‘conjectural fit’ tests. Does atheism or Christianity (or any other worldview for that matter) best accord with the reality we experience. I contend it is the latter whereas others may contend otherwise. That’s fine, but let’s not pretend that a particular view is more grounded in ‘evidence’ or ‘arguments’ than another. It simply isn’t the case.
@@PastorTanner yep utterly predictable response. You’re left with an argument in semantics attempting to define what facts and evidence are. Also you don’t know what the word atheism means as it holds no world view.
Perhaps you’re unaware of the centuries of scientific repeatable verifiable data which validates many theories of biology, geology and evolution. On the flip side you have trust me bro this book says something and I feel it’s true.
@@timg7627 I'm not arguing semantics, I'm arguing epistemology. 'Trust me bro this book says something and I feel it's true' does not remotely represent the position I've espoused here. 'No worldview' is not a thing. Everyone has a worldview, no matter how consciously it is or is not adopted.
You wouldn't need ANY of these methods if god actually existed.
I'm not sure that's the case. What if God wants us to grow through precisely this means of deeper thought and reflection? That would adequately account for the current state of reality while also supporting the existence of God.
How would you know if that's what god wanted?@@PastorTanner
I’m not sure I would. I’m certainly not claiming certainty regarding God’s desires for self-disclosure. I was just thinking through your original statement, and it sounds something like this to me:
Premise 1: IF God existed he would want to reveal himself blatantly to every human being
Premise 2: God has NOT revealed himself blatantly to every human being
Conclusion: therefore, God does not exist
I’m simply taking issue with the first premise. I can imagine a universe in which God would not necessarily want to reveal himself blatantly to every human being. In fact, I believe it is the one we’re living in. If this were the case, then Apologetic method is a potentially worthwhile and worthy endeavor.
Firstly, according to the Bible, god does reveal himself blatantly to certain people, and then the rest of us are expected to believe what those people say. That's not fair. Secondly, I wouldn't have a problem with god wanting to make it difficult for us to find him were it not for the fact that the punishment for not finding him is eternal hellfire. @@PastorTanner
@@davepugh2519
That is why I formulated my first premise as ‘all people.’ If there is even one person to whom God is not ‘blatantly revealed’ then I believe your initial statement that ‘if God exists, none of this would be needed’ is false. For all people to whom God is not ‘blatantly revealed’ are in need of some sort of apologetic. In my experience, that number is a lot higher than 1.
As to the fairness of the arrangement, I wasn’t answering that. If it is unfair, I suppose that should be taken up with God. I certainly don’t make the rules.
As to your final point regarding hellfire and damnation, I’m not sure I see how that should preclude belief in God per se.
Two potential solutions are available (among many others, these are just the two that came to mind)
1. Hellfire and damnation are inexcusable and we should add that to the list of things we should take up with God
2. God exists even though hellfire and damnation don’t. There are plenty of religions that posit a God without hellfire and damnation
I suppose my problem is this. I was answering your claim about the existence of God when in reality your beef is with Christianity as a whole religious system. That’s fair, I’m a Christian pastor after all and ‘belief in God’ is often used as shorthand for ‘faith in Christianity.’ However, a defense of the entire Christian worldview is not what I set out to do in this comment section, and would probably take a lot more time, effort, and energy than either of us have available.
I appreciate your comments and I hope this explanation makes at least some sense of my responses thus far.
❤
-tanner
the best way to share to gospel for you would be to not to
Thanks for the good word.
I don't believe. You are welcome to practice on me if you dare. Ask me anything. My first question to you would be...is it possible that the Bible is fiction? I for sure am philosophically challenged. A yes or no answer is best.
Sure. For me we have two potential hypotheses (actually an infinite number, but for sake of current argument, two).
Either:
1. The Bible is fiction
2. The Bible is fact
Then I ask ‘given all that I know about the world, which is more likely? Which most accords with reality as I have experienced it?’ For me the answer is #2. So I operate as though it were the case until additional data causes me to operate differently.
^^^ this is overly simplistic, but it roughly aligns with my approach
-tanner
When I was a youngster, learning that humans lie alot about everything and also missing out in the all important indoctrination as a child, I had no choice but to wait for personal confirmation of the supernatural. Not only nothing yet but I am now up to 99% sure it doesn't. Sooo I have no choice but to go with #1.
Fair enough. Now as with all hypotheses, I suggest you keep an open mind and adjust/adapt as you assimilate more information about the world and reality. Human beings know almost nothing about the universe, so new knowledge always has the potential to adjust our existing paradigms. I’ll commit to doing the same. God bless.
-tanner
@@PastorTanner I would say the more we compare the world with the bible the more apart im from #2. Each time humanity that finds something in the bible didnt happen (like adam and eve story) or couldnt happen (like the flood or babel's tower fables) the more clear becomes that is #1.
Also, the answer that 'is not supposed to be literal but metaphorical' doesnt work because then is not a fact (aka. #2)
Of course, all of that was before i learned about burden of proof and how rationality works, which makes #2 more and more unlikely.
@@Julian0101 Meh. Burden of proof and rationality don't constitute the way human beings actually approach the world (irrespective of their espoused religious convictions). Human beings are impulsive creatures that readily latch onto what 'resonates' with them (Jonathan Haidt's 'The Righteous Mind' helped me here). Of course, developing stronger reasoning skills is certainly valuable, but these reasoning skills ought not to be limited by nominalistic presuppositions (as nearly everyone in the West - [Christians included] typically do). Garbage in, garbage out.
There are different kinds of facts and spiritual facts are just as valid as material ones.