Cold Case Christianity: Is God Real? Examining Atheistic Explanations for the Laws of Logic as “Brute Realities”

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Is God Real? 

Examining Atheistic Explanations for the Laws of Logic as “Brute Realities”

January 11, 2019 God

All rational discussions (even those related to the existence or non-existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes.

Which is precisely why the laws of logic are axiomatic or "brute truths".  If they are the foundation for all rational discussion, then they must be presumed true even for communications that ask about the origin of logic itself.  The only serious answer the atheist can give to "where does logic come from" would be an answer that is logically valid, thus committing the fallacy of begging the question. 

You can, of course, break the circle by giving a non-logical answer to that question, but then the lack of logic in your answer will justify the hearer to ignore the answer.  Hence, logic itself is properly exempt from questions of origin.  Those who disagree simply don't like the idea of "axioms".

Only theism, however, can adequately account for the existence of the transcendent Laws of Logic.

No, when theists 'account' for the existence of logic, the theist, like everybody else, is begging the question, since any answer she gives will have logic inhering in it already.  There is no possible way to appraise logic from the "outside", and we are forced to use logic to test logic, which is why it is automatically fallaciously circular to pretend one can "account for" logic itself.  You may as well use the shovel to dig around looking for the same shovel.

And your comment falsely presumes the laws of logic are "transcendent", which, to your audience, doesn't  mean "axiomatic", but rather "from God".

If God exists, He is the absolute, objective, transcendent standard of truth;

No, the god of the bible is not perfect (Genesis 6:6-7), and in the 1st century imperfect gods were routinely worshiped.  Being 'god' does not automatically prove some absolute objective standard of truth.  But your automatically equating "god" with "absolute" is what lots of ignorant Christians do.

the Laws of Logic are simply a reflection of His nature.

First, fallacy of begging the question.  Your answer is in logically correct form, which means your answer is assuming as true the very question at issue.  If you gave a non-logical answer, this would properly break the circle, but then nobody would listen to you.  You are thus using logic to test logic.

Second, you also say certain human morals are a reflection of god's nature (Frank Turek makes a big deal out of moral realism), but there, you admit we can violate this aspect of god's "nature", while we cannot violate the laws of logic.  That is, your "nature of god" explanation is full of holes.

Third, if logic is an inescapable truth of god's nature, and if people in hell won't be able to subvert the laws of logic, then your god will also be part of hell, when in fact the Christian babies you cater to insist that hell is "separation from God", not merely separation from his love.

We will shortly find out whether you have demonstrated that logical laws reflect 'god's' nature.

God did not create these laws. They exist as an extension of His rational thinking,

So you agree god has a physical brain?  Or will you say "non-physical thinking", then start citing to the Enfield Poltergeist and Amittyville horror to prove that non-material thinking is possible?

and for this reason, they are as eternal as God Himself.

But if fundamentalist evangelical scholars Copan and Flannagan are correct, "kill'em all" in the bible was a case of typical Semitic exaggeration.  We thus have to wonder if those other OT texts you read like a newspaper headline, are also less than literal...such as those texts that talk about how long god has existed...like Psalm 90:2.

Is God real?

No, "god" as defined in traditional theism is a completely incoherent concept, and just like "fairy" does not escape the criticism merely because we invented a definition for it. 

Without God as a source for the transcendent Laws of Logic, this question (and any logical journey toward the answer) would be impossible to examine.

So?  Logic is axiomatic, so the failure of "explanation" is all that can be expected, there is no such thing as accounting for the origin of axioms.

But then again, you only write for Christian babies, you have neither interest nor ability to take on the better informed skeptics like myself, so you likely perceive your "apologetics" arguments as little more than preaching.   So you need to stop wondering why skeptic find none of your apologetics the least bit compelling.

As an atheist, I rejected the existence of God and offered a number of objections and alternative explanations in an effort to account for the Laws of Logic.

Which meant that you were committing the fallacy of begging the question.  It also shows that back when you were an atheist, you either didn't know, or didn't care, what "axioms" were.

In yesterday’s post we outlined the theistic explanation for these laws. Today and tomorrow we’ll examine several naturalistic objections to see if any of them might offer a viable alternative. We’ll begin with efforts to describe the Laws of Logic as “brute realities” of the universe:
 Objection:
Aren’t the Laws of Logic simply the “brute” characteristics of reality? Both material and immaterial things must abide by boundaries of existence in order to exist in the first place. The “Laws of Logic” are simply a part of these boundaries. They are not transcendent laws from a Transcendent Mind; they are simply among the natural boundaries of existence.
 Both theists and atheists agree the Laws of Logic are brute somethings. Atheists might claim Logic is a brute, innate fact of existence, while theists might argue Logic is a brute, innate reflection of the nature and thinking of God. In either case, these laws would have to be eternal, uncaused and necessary.

No, logic is caused.  Logic is relative to language.  Where there is no language, there is no law of non-contradiction.  You may say matter never violates the law of non-contradiction in absence of language, but you cannot communicate that idea without language.  Having logic apart from language is like having spelling apart from letters.

Nothing can exist without the simultaneous existence of these laws. But let’s now look at how both sides account for their existence:
 On Atheism
The brute Laws of Logic simply exist. They are eternal and uncaused. Nothing can exist without them. That’s just the way it is.

Forgetting your "uncaused" falsehood, yes, the laws of logic are axiomatic, and therefore, properly exempt from the question of why they exist, or where they come from, except the obvious fact that they inhere in language.

On Theism
God is eternal, uncaused, omniscient and omnipotent.

You pretend as if classical theism is just as foregone a conclusion as Jesus' resurrection, despite your knowing that many Christian scholars deny God's "omniscience" and "omnipotence".

He is the all-knowing and all-powerful Creator;

same answer.

the necessary, uncaused first cause of all matter, space and time.

Except that there is no evidence, whatsoever, that matter itself can come into existence, and the 1st law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is of infinite age.  The reasonableness of that position is not going to disappear merely because you quote the bible or connect the big bang with Genesis 1:1.  You either show that matter itself can come into existence (which you won't do apart from favoring the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics over all the other schools), or you are forced to agree that there is no evidence that matter cannot come into existence, and therefore, if it does exist, has simply always existed.

He has thoughts and possesses a particular character, essence and nature.

So God has a physical brain?  Or will you cite to ghosts and things that go bump in the night and J.P. Moreland's defense of mind-body dualism to pretend that non-physical thinking is a legitimate concept?

Because He is all-powerful and all-knowing, these attributes are perfected (an all-powerful and all-knowing God has the power to eliminate imperfection).

Sorry, I'm not a classical theist, because the bible authors did an imperfect of job of covering up their god's imperfections.  if you don't need much of a reason to be completely apathetic toward a sadistic lunatic, I don't need much of a reason to ignore the divinely caused atrocities in Deut. 28:15-62, which that god will be "delighted" to inflict on disobedient people, v. 63.  Those atrocities include rape (v. 30) and parental cannibalism (v. 53-57).  No thanks.

The Laws of Logic are simply an attribute and reflection of God’s perfect existence;

But we can break the moral laws that you say are a reflection of his existence, so apparently, if something reflects god's nature, we can break it.  Since we cannot break logic, it probably doesn't reflect your god's nature.  Otherwise, you'll have to explain how humans could have ability to break god's morals but not his logic.  Before you tell the babies that god gave Adam and Eve "freewill", I suggest you consult with Steve Hays or other Christian who is a Five Point Calvinist.  I'll look you up again in about 35 years so I can see whether god's likeminded ones, armed with the same bible, were able to get their act together in how they understand god's "clear" word.

God does not create these laws, they are an innate and immutable aspect of His nature.

And space dust comes from flying pigs.

As God is necessary for all else to exist, so are the Laws of Logic. They are merely a reflection of His Being, and they permeate all of His creation.

You have demonstrated NOTHING.  You are simply insisting that it is so.  I don't feel sympathy for you because you should know enough to realize that when you are dealing with an issue that has no empirically demonstrable ties to physical reality, you are dealing in a horrifically nebulous area highly prone to flights of imaginative fancy.  No, atheists are not exempt from such stupidity. 

Both the atheist and the theist agree something is eternal, uncaused and necessary. But when the atheist says the Laws of Logic “simply exist”, he’s begging the question; he’s not providing an explanation for the eternal, uncaused and necessary existence of the laws (saying they exist does not provide us with an explanation for their existence).

That's because anything that is "axiomatic" is by definition exempt from the question of origin.  Apparently, you think it proper to ask where axioms come from, perhaps indicating your abilities in philosophy are no better than your abilities in apologetics.  But as long as your childish bullshit keeps the money rolling in, makes sense to be childish.

Theists, on the other hand, can make a case for God’s existence from a number of evidential lines, providing a reasonable foundation from which logical absolutes can then be elucidated.

Nope, I've already explained why logic is an axiom, and therefore, not subject to "where did it come from" analysis.

In addition, atheism fails to explain how the Laws of Logic can be eternal and uncaused and what role they play in causing all other contingent realities.

Because those logical laws are axiomatic, and hence properly exempt from efforts at "explaining" their basis or origin.

Theism, on the other hand, accounts for the existence of the Laws of Logic by pointing to the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent uncaused, first cause possessing perfect rationality (by virtue of His limitless power) who also acts as the first cause of all other dependent (contingent) creations.

No, you are just a classical theist who mistakes his classical theism for "theism" proper, despite knowing of other Christian scholars who deny classical theism and adopt open-theism.

Objection:
Aren’t the “Laws of Logic” simply the result of observations we make of the world in which we live? We discovered the Laws of Physics from our observations of the natural world; can’t we discover the Laws of Logic in a similar way?
 The Laws of Logic are conceptual. They only exist in the mind.

Which is physical.

They don’t describe physical behaviors or actions of matter, but instead describe conceptual truths.

Which is why they are nothing more than the function of language.

Logical axioms are statements dealing with conceptual patterns and processes of thought.

Oh, ok:  so you know that logic is axiomatic...so why are you pretending atheists cannot "account for" logic, when anything that is axiomatic is exempt from such questions?  Maybe your desire to preach is greater than your desire to understand correctly?

Consider the analogy to physics as a point of contrast. Newton’s three Laws of Motion (for example) may be conceptual as statements, but they describe actual physical behaviors we can observe. This is an important difference relative to the Laws of Logic. Logical absolutes cannot be observed and do not describe the behavior or actions of material objects.
 Now let’s consider an example atheism might present as proof we learn the Laws of Logic from our observations of the natural world. Someone might argue our careful observations of a sea shell, for example, reveal Laws of Logic. Recognizing the shell exists only as a shell (it is not a fish – nor does it ever become a fish) we might then posit and formulate the Law of Identity or the Law of Non-Contradiction. From this simple example, an atheist might claim the Laws of Logic can be discovered from observations of material objects.

Not this atheist...he knows that when we begin to use language to communicate about the sea shell, we will be presupposing the validity of the very logic that is being questioned.  Logic is axiomatic.  YOU are the one who is in the wrong for pretending we can legitimately inquire into logic's origin. The only thing we can say is that it is relative to language.  There are no "laws of logic" that matter "obeys" in the absence of language.  You have to use language, such as "why don't rocks violate the law of non-contradiction whenever language-producing life forms aren't nearby?"  No language?  No logic, real easy.  But even this attempt to locate the origin of logic commits the fallacy of begging the question since the attempt presupposes the validity of the logic being questioned.

But let’s think carefully about this.

Did you mean "let's use logic to evaluate itself"?

Yes, the shell does not change. And yes, we can observe this physical reality. But we then do something very interesting; we assign a logical absolute to the observation we just made.

Because we have language.

We assign something conceptual to our observation of matter. The mere fact we made an observation and then assigned a logical absolute to the observation does not then account for the existence of all logical absolutes in the first place.

I agree that the kind of atheist you respond to here, is indeed in the wrong.

Our observations may support the pre-existence of logical absolutes, but this does not mean our observations established the Laws of Logic. See the difference?

Yes, but you continue failing to see that because the law of logic are axiomatic, it is fallacious to ask for their basis or origin.  Once again, to even try to do so, is to beg the question, since your comments would be already presuming the very validity of the logic you are otherwise trying to 'account' for. 

We don’t form the Laws of Logic from the observations; we instead confirm the pre-existing logical truths with our observations.

Only if we have language.  Last I checked, bacteria don't wonder about the law of non-contradiction.  You will never demonstrate logic to exist apart from language.

The Laws of Logic pre-exist our arrival in the universe.

No, they are relative to language.  You may as well talk about "quickness" in absence of movement.

We discover them, and in so doing, discover something about the nature of the universe’s Creator.

Atheism's alleged wrongness is irrelevant:  Jesus' resurrection is provably false, which means Christianity is false, which means Christianity has been misrepresenting the OT YHWH for 2,000 years, and since the OT is far more explicit that God hates false prophets than that he hates those who completely ignore him (Deut. 13, Deut. 18), we can be sure that, if the god of Judaism is the god the Christian will fall back on after discovering Jesus didn't rise from the dead, this god is likely more pissed off at Christians than at atheists.

Hence, god's basic existence is irrelevant, even if true.  You simply have no credible evidence that the alleged "wrongness" of atheism is supposed to be some type of urgent danger.  Not so.  Also wouldn't matter if the danger to atheists was real, you cannot demosntrate any such contention.  Well gee, what do you do if you checked the house and found no intruders?  Stay outside forever merely because to be wrong is to risk death?  No.

The Laws of Logic pre-exist our arrival in the universe.

No, they are relative to language.

We discover them,

Because we have chosen to define certain things as opposites. 

Triablogue, History and methodological naturalism

This is my reply to an article by Steve Hays at Triablogue entitled

"I never claimed to be doing history"

Friday, November 01, 2019

In addition, "history" is ambiguous. It can mean different things:
i) What actually happened in the past

If that's what the speaker means, then they lack epistemological sophistication unless they claim to be direct eyewitnesses, since it's obviously true that whether some event "actually" happened can only be gauged in terms of probability.  If the common person fails to make such critical distinction and equates probability with actuality, that doesn't change anything I just said.  There is no such thing as "actually happened" for the investigator looking at third-party sources, there's only "degree of probability".

However, I don't find it necessarily fallacious for the person who thinks there's a high degree of probability, to regard this as "actually happened".

ii) What demonstrably happened. What historians think happened. What historians think probably happened or probably didn't happen, what definitely happened and what definitely never happened.

I think that's far closer to the truth.

iii) So "history" in the sense of (ii) comes down to the personal judgement of individual historians.

And since the rules of historiography cannot be employed in mechanical fashion, so that making a probability assessment for a historical event is as easy as figuring out whether baking soda and vineger fizz when mixed, it will prove impossible to get people to agree on many events for which we have only ancient and disputable evidence. 

In other words, when your case is limited to ancient disputed evidence (and inerrantists, evangelicals and "reformed" Christians disagree about the degree to which the gospels are historically reliable), you'd have to be high on crack to pretend that this case can be so good that only "fools" would deny it.  Hell, juries today that deliberate about evidence that was created as late as two years before, often cannot come to agreement after the american judicial system has done its best to get through the dross and provide them with established facts.  Any Christain who come bobbing along and insists 2,000 year old documents of questionable authenticity/authorship and text are "reliable" is more interested in yelling for Jesus than in common sense.

iv) Ehrman appeals to historical criteria, but criteria are value-laden and mirror the worldview of a given historian.

That's a good thing, since there is no such thing as presuppositionless analysis.  Presuming the reliability of one's 5 senses is far more objective than one's suspicion that maybe they are just brains in vats wired up by space aliens to think they are people on earth doing investigation.

For Ehrman, "history" is what's left over after you filter the historical evidence through the pasta strainer of methodological naturalism.

That's a good thing too, otherwise, the cops, to be fair, would have to spend equal amounts of time pursuing leads generated by purely naturalistic methods, and leads generated by purely psychic or "prayer" methods.  If your own kid was kidnapped, you would put no faith whatsoever in having the cops focus all of their energies in leads generated solely by the prayers of other Christians, you would instead ask that  they presume the infallibility of their 5 physical senses and pursue any leads generated by purely non-supernaturalist investigation methods, like empiricism.  When you child is kidnapped, you suddenly (and conveniently) lack the motive to highlight the alleged "fallacies" of empiricism.   The more the cops fail to follow leads generated by purely naturalistic investigation methods, the less likely you'll ever see your kid again.

But there's no presumption that we should operate with methodological naturalism unless metaphysical naturalism is true.

We atheists don't have to prove something "true" to regard it as a safe assumption, we only have to show that it is a reasonable position to take.  Metaphysical naturalism is what's behind all scientific progress, while attempts to grow in knowledge by purely supernatural means have provided precisely nothing, except the very type of word-wrangling that your apostle Paul specifically forbade (2nd Timothy 2:14).

You will exclaim that the OT prophets accurately predicted events hundreds of years ahead of them.  I am quite aware of the apologetic of "predictive prophecy" and after having examined all the OT texts Christians constantly put forward (Isaiah 7:14, Daniel 9, Micah 5:2), I still find faulty exegesis, naturalistic guessing and late authorship to account for any such cases more reasonably than the "god told them" explanation, which, by being grounded in an infinite complexity, obviously violates Occam's Razor far more than any naturalistic explanation would.

In other words, when I say supernaturalism does not have as good of a track record of helping us discover "truth" as non-supernatural methods have, I know what I'm talking about and I defy any "apologist" to prove different.  We've discovered a lot of truth since the Enlightenment...which of those truths were uncovered by God revealing something supernaturally to any human being?  NONE.

Or maybe the deep thinkers at Triablogue will attack my "scientific progress" model and claim that their bible-god doesn't care about mankind's scientific progress and shouldn't be presumed to desire to give any such knowledge by supernatural means?  Ok, how many Triablogue members live a daily life that is enhanced by that modern technology and discovery that this bible-god allegedly doesn't care to reveal supernaturally?  Do you use a computer, cell phone or debit card?

If God doesn't wish to supernaturally reveal "scientific" discoveries, might that argue that God is against the unbelieving world trying to advance in technology?  What did God fear might happen when unbelieving mankind tried that before?  Read Genesis 11:6.

So that's a dishonest shortcut. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, methodological naturalism has all the advantages of theft over honest toil.

The atheist who depends upon his naturalistic presuppositions to interpret new evidence, is no more "dishonest" than the Christian who depends on her supernaturalistic presuppositions to interpret new evidence.   The question is which person is more reasonable.

What you need to do is show that the naturalistic presuppositions are false or fallacious.

I've read Triablogue's entries alleging that empiricism is "fallacious".  You've never shown any such thing, and the fact that even sincere committed bible-centered Trinitarian evangelical Christians think presuppositionalism is total bullshit, is quite sufficient to justify the atheist outsider, if they choose, to regard that debate as utterly futile, and to therefore avoid it entirely and then go forth in the world interpreting new evidence in the way that everybody else does...by the use of their 5 physical senses.

Cold Case Christianity: Correct: there are no good reasons to believe in miracles

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

 

Cold Case Christianity: Quick Shot: 

“There are no good reasons to believe in miracles” 

Posted: 28 Oct 2019 01:44 AM PDT

Response #1:
“How do you define ‘miracles’?

That's not our problem.   Just like the little girl who says "how do you define fairies?"  If she believes in them, and wants us to believe also, it's her burden to provide coherent definition.  But have fun defining "miracle" in a way that an atheist cannot correctly criticize as question-begging.  Act of God?  Phenomena for which no possible naturalistic explanation will work?  Phenomena for which no known naturalistic explanation will work? 

A miracle is commonly described as an event ‘that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws.’

But since science is an on-going enterprise, what we thought naturally inexplicable today could very well be naturally explicable tomorrow.  Now, you can be "reasonable" to believe a miracle-report, but that doesn't render the skeptic unreasonable.  Reasonableness takes far more into account than simply whether a belief is "accurate".

Given that definition, most cosmologists (even atheist cosmologists) already believe in at least one miracle. The ‘Standard Cosmological Model’ for the origin of the universe (the theory accepted by most astrophysicists) is ‘Big Bang Cosmology.’

Then count me out.  The Big Bang is garbage scientifically, as admitted by several creationist organizations (ICR, AiG, etc) who also say the BB is unbliblical to boot.

This model describes a universe that came into existence from nothing.

No, the BB says the universe exploded from a singularity.  Your additional theory that the singularity popped into existence from nothing, cannot be defended.  All you can do is talk like an advocate of the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics, and then pray your readers don't discover that some schools of QM are deterministic.

If all space, time and matter began at a point in the distant past and came into existence from nothing, the cause of the universe must itself be non-spatial, non-temporal and non-material.

Logically, that's correct.  But there is no such thing as "non-spatial".  Yup, I'm a physicalist.

That means the cause of the universe ‘is not explicable by natural or scientific laws.’ Since the cause and the origin of the universe already falls into the definition of ‘miraculous,’ why would anyone doubt the veracity of other miracles?” Since the cause and the origin of the universe already falls into the definition of ‘miraculous,’ why would anyone doubt the veracity of other miracles?

Easy, because the people who reported those miracles are either too unknown to enable a credibility assessment, or what they say wasn't corroborated by others, or their reports are given an unknown number of years after the alleged event, or they have credibility problems justifying skepticism toward their testimony.

Response #2:
“Some people reject the existence of miracles based on their belief that the only forces governing the universe are ‘natural,’ ‘physical,’ or ‘material.’

That's because words like "supernatural" and "non-physical" and "immaterial", when used the way Christian apologists intend, constitute incoherent concepts.

As far as natural law, we might be wrong, but the point is we are not "unreasonable" to judge reports of phenomena based on our prior experience.  Only fools would pretend to be totally objective in evaluating a report no matter how far it departed from their experience of reality.  In that case, I'd be so busy investigating non-Christian miracle claims, I'd never have any time to look into Christian miracle claims.  You wouldn't want that, would you?  Well then gee, exactly how comprehensive must one's investigation into "miracles" be?  Not longer than it takes to respond to your internet posts?  Not longer than it takes to read "God's Crime Scene"? 

And how would you feel if you found out that, after i accepted your challenge to check out miracle claims, I went to the local bookstore to get your latest book and I died in a car crash along the way and went to hell?  Wouldn't you feel guilty for necessarily implying (by telling me to "check it out" something that takes time),  that I could safely delay the day of my repentance?  Maybe you need to revise your apologetics invitations in accordance with Ezekiel 3:18.

For example, if you reject the existence of anything ‘extra’ or ‘supra’ natural, you’re not likely to believe in miracles that violate natural laws.

Correct.  The notion that there's an "outside the universe" is incoherent and that's enough to justify rejection of the concept.

But, we have a shared knowledge of non-physical and non-material realities: we have a daily, common experience of consciousness and mind,

False, consciousness and mind are physical, this is more reasonable than a theory saying they come into the head from another dimension.  My theory violates Occam's Razor less, so its going to remain reasonable even if not infallible.

and we also experience free agency.

Your Calvinist brothers will now accuse you of heresy.  But either way, freewill doesn't make sense.  Free from what? The laws of physics?  No, the chemicals in our brain determine our moods and feelings, which obviously affect our choices.  The fact is that we automatically assume, from the lack of scientific evidence otherwise, that we are "free to chose".  But the sense of freedom is illusory.  The dog probably feels free to do what he wants too, but you'd probably say dogs don't have freewill because they don't have the "image of God".

Strict atheists (like neuroscientist and philosopher, Sam Harris) reject the existence of mind and free agency because they know they cannot be explained physically or materially.

No, he doesn't reject "mind", he rejects the mind/body dualism as understood by Christians.  He simply thinks the mind is nothing more but the brain in action.

If our common experience reveals the existence of non-material and non-physical realities that cannot be governed by ‘natural,’ physical law, why would anyone reject the reasonable existence of other realities that aren’t governed by ‘natural,’ physical law?”

We wouldn't, but whether the alleged existence of those other realities is "reasonable" is precisely where we will continue to disagree.  But either way, you haven't shown that anything real can possibly be "non-physical", so your analogy places no intellectual constraint on me.

Response #3:
“A famous skeptic named David Hume argued against the existence of miracles because he believed that evidence for what occurs repeatedly (or regularly) ought to outweigh evidence for what occurs rarely.

He was correct. If belief in actual 'truth' is the goal, then we should not believe reports of what occurs rarely unless the evidence for any such event passes more strict tests of authentication than the evidence we have for common events.  Extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.  So I don't believe my buddy when he says he got a hole in one on the golf course unless I'm satisfied this claim passes more strict tests of authentication than we normally require for common claims.

Since miracles occur so infrequently and are rare in our uniform experience, Hume argued that we shouldn’t believe in them.

...unless the evidence for them outweighed the evidence we have for normal events.

But miracles are – by definition – rare events that violate natural laws and common experience.

No, a miracle by definition is an act of God, so unless you wish to piss off your Calvinist brothers and assert that god hardly ever acts...

If we are willing to accept the evidence for rare events (like the evidence offered by ‘Big Bang’ Cosmologists), and our most common, uniform experience is non-material and non-physical (our experience of consciousness and free agency), why would anyone reject the existence of a miracle on the basis of its rarity?”

This reasoning doesn't place an intellectual obligation on me, as I deny the BB, I deny that humans have free agency,  and deny that any real thing that is "real" can be "non-physical", which linguistically seems to have a lot in common with "non-cheesecake".

My Trinity-rebuttal to AnnoyedPinoy

"Annoyed Pinoy" regularly posts at Triablogue.  See here.  He defends the Trinity doctrine at one of his own blogs.

I posted the following challenge to him at that blog (see here).

I now crosspost that here in case it happens to disappear:

Trinitarians get around Mark 13:32 by limiting Jesus' confession of ignorance solely to his "human nature".  But since one's "nature" is their inherent feature and thus something the person cannot avoid implicating, then if Jesus had two natures, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that BOTH of them were implicated in his confession of ignorance (i.e., the divine side of Jesus admitted being ignorant of something). 

The reasonableness of implicating both of his alleged "natures" is not going to disappear merely because you feel forced under biblical inerrancy to automatically favor any view about Jesus that will make sense of the premise that he could both know and not know one single factoid at the same time. 

You probably believe that a person's mind is their "spirit", and if so, this would be the case with Jesus who became a "real" human being (i.e., became a higher-order mammal whose mind was capable of operating separately from its body).  Ok, was Jesus speaking with his "mind" when he confessed this ignorance?  Is Jesus' "mind" the same as his "spirit"?  Was Jesus' speaking from his "spirit" by divulging the ignorant state of his "mind" in Mark 13:32?  What exactly would be "unreasonable" in saying Jesus' was speaking from his "spirit" in Mark 13:32?   

Was Jesus' spirit separate from the Holy Spirit?  Mark 3 would seem to disallow this with its warning that accusing Jesus of demon-possession constitutes blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as it falsely equates the Holy Spirit with demons...which implies that Jesus' "spirit" is the Holy Spirit, there is no lesser "human spirit" in addition to his "Holy Spirit".  Jesus also breathes on the disciples in John 20 and says "receive ye the Holy Spirit" powerfully supporting the notion that his spirit is the Holy Spirit, and there is no fourth identity called "human spirit" in existence here.  

Therefore, if Jesus was speaking his "mind" in Mark 13:32, he was also speaking from his "spirit" in Mark 13:32, and thus his confession of ignorance constitutes the Holy Spirit's ignorance, which then saddles god himself with this ignorance. 

Was the day of Christ's return missing from Jesus' "mind"?  Was it missing from his "spirit"?
If you try to get away from this by positing that Jesus had a "human mind" that was separate from "Holy Spirit", you'll end up with 4 people in the Trinity...at least during his earthly life, even if there were only 3 people in it before the incarnation. 

Remember, there are only 3 persons you are allowed here, no extras!

Seems to me that reading Trinitarian theology back into Mark 13:32 comes at great intellectual sacrifice, and doesn't even conform to normative hermeneutical convention, since what the originally intended audience likely understood Mark 13:32 represents a normative rule of interpretation, and common sense would insist that Mark's orignally intended audience, back there in 60 a.d., likely had views of Jesus far less theologically sophisticated than the views espoused by the "orthodox" at Nicaea.

So Mark's originally intended audience would more than likely have denied Jesus' alleged omniscience, and if other parts of Mark indicate Jesus knew all things, this is either typical Semitic exaggeration, or Jesus inconsistently held an unrealistically high view of himself, or Mark's gospel is merely inconsistent about the matter.

I personally prefer  the second.  Mark's obvious apathy toward Jesus' childhood is more consistent with the theory that he was something of an adoptionist, even if, like most people, his entire story is not consistent with everything adoptionist.

Regardless, bible inerrancy is a false doctrine, so I'm quite  reasonable to feel comfortable with the possibility that the interpretation of Mark 13:32 that causes Mark to contradict himself, is the correct one. 

This is despite the fact that Mark nowhere claims that Jesus is equal with God. 

James Patrick Holding violates his own advice

Mr. Holding introduces Galileo's "insulting" demeanor with "unfortunately".  From "Blowing the Doors Off", p. 375



This is sort of like Hitler telling a friend "Unfortunately, that Nazi guard doesn't know how to treat Jews politely."

But if the reader takes Holding's point to heart, they will conclude that Galileo would have been smarter to learn how to make his case politely. 

Which means they would eventually conclude that James Patrick Holding could similarly have avoided his own legal troubles (multiple lawsuits against him for libel) if he had learned to make his case more politely.

It would thus appear that Holding is willing to give to others the false appearance that he doesn't think it is ever morally justified to use insulting language, including situations where biblical truth is being suppressed or misrepresented.

James Patrick Holding and his followers violate 1st Corinthians 5:11

James Patrick Holding's alleged magnum opus is his absurd defense of insulting his critics (i.e., nothing in the bible or the early church fathers condemns his constantly insulting the non-Christians who disagree with his opinions, see here. (he has configured his website to make sure I cannot access it, probably because he doesn't have anything to fear from my criticisms.)

When apostle Paul required Christians to disassociate themselves from the so-called Christian "brother" who sins, he gave a list of such sins.  One sin listed was "reviler":

 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.
 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:9-13 NAU)

What does "reviler" mean?  According to standard grammatical authorities:

BDAG and GINGRICH say it is an "abusive person"

TDNT says:

ἀντιλοιδορέω antiloidoreÃoÒ [to revile in return]
 This common word group has the secular sense of reproach, insult, calumny, and even blasphemy. In the LXX it carries the nuance of wrangling, angry remonstrance, or chiding as well as the more usual calumny. Philo has it for mockery or invective. In the NT the verb occurs four times and the noun and adjective twice each.
 1. loiÃdoros occurs in lists of vices in 1 Cor. 5:11 and 6:10. In Acts 23:4 Paul is asked why he reviles the high priest, and in his reply he recognizes a religious duty not to do so. In Mart. Pol. 9.3 the aged Polycarp cannot revile Christ; to do so would be blasphemy.
 2. Christians should try to avoid calumny (1 Tim. 5:14), but when exposed to it (cf. Mt. 5:11) they should follow Christ's example (1 Pet. 2:23; cf. Mt. 26:63; Jn. 18:23), repaying railing with blessing (1 Pet. 3:9). This is the apostolic way of 1 Cor. 4:12: “When reviled, we bless” (cf. Diog. 5.15). By this answer to calumny the reality of the new creation is manifested. [H. HANSE, IV, 293-94]

DANKER says

λοίδορος,ου,ὁ [fr. a source shared by Lat. ludus ‘game’] insolent person 1 Cor 5:11; 6:10.  

"insolent" means:

Showing a rude and arrogant lack of respect (English Oxford);
(of a person or a person’s behavior) intentionally and rudely showing no respect (Cambridge);
insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct (Merriam-Webster)

So it's pretty safe to say that the standard grammatical authorities tell us that the "reviler" brother that Paul tells Christians to stay away from is the "brother" who is constantly abusive in speech, or insulting, constantly engaging in angry wrangling/mockery, and doing this in a rude disrespectful way, or otherwise engaging in insultingly contemptuous speech. 

What we can reasonably thus conclude that the smartest Christian apologist in the world is completely blind to the basic NT ethics taught in this passage.

Or perhaps, being so smart, yes he knew about it, but chose to ignore its obvious meaning, likely because he has a genetic defect that causes him to suppress and excuse away anything that might reveal a character flaw and pretend his own opinion is infallible.

His babies will scream "there's an exception for skeptics who publicly criticize our faith!"

The trouble is that I've already gotten statements from legitimately credentialed scholars, some of whom previously publicly endorsed Holding, who said they see no biblical justification, whatsoever, for today's Christian to be insulting toward anybody, including critics and skeptics. See here.

For example, see my blog piece showing that Dr. Michael Licona and Dr. Gary Habermas likely think James Patrick Holding is a piece of shit scumbag, since even back in 2004 they were jointly insisting that it is biblically unacceptable for a Christian to insult "skeptics".  See here.

Gary Habermas once publicly endorsed Holding.  Licona's daughter is the wife of Holding's ministry partner Nick Peters.  One might reasonably speculate that this family has often had friendly conversations about Holding's infamously foul mouth (I have emails showing Habermas rebuking Holding for it), and not even the world's smartest Christian apologists (Licona and Habermas) can see any biblical justification for, and see only biblical condemnation against, Holding's genetically defective tendency to insult anything he hates.

Holding's babies will scream "we are employing riposte the way Jesus and Paul did", but the clear prohihbition against reviling in 1st Corinthians 5:11 makes it clear that God doesn't want you to do something merely because Jesus and Paul did it.  Whatever first-century "riposte" was, its limits are clearly specified in that verse.  No, the name-calling nature of ancient agrarian cultures doesn't automatically mean you are justified to imitate it. 

For the Holding-babies who continue to support him regardless, you might want to read about God's instituting America's libel-laws in Romans 13, then ask yourself why Holding is unable to escape the current libel lawsuit I've filed against him.

If it is so easy for Holding to prove this current lawsuit to be frivolous or unfounded, why hasn't he prevailed with a motion to dismiss yet?   Might it actually be a bit harder to disprove my allegations, than it would be to state the first letter of the English Alphabet?

Could it actually be that the world's biggest scumbag apologist actually did cross the line into legitimately actionable slander?  Gee, you've never heard of honest-appearing Christians being exposed as scandalous wolves, have you?

If that is a possibility, then why haven't you given serious consideration to apostle Paul's demand that you dissociate yourself from "brothers" who are "revilers"? 

James Patrick Holding violates Proverbs 26

 17 Like one who takes a dog by the ears Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him.
 18 Like a madman who throws Firebrands, arrows and death,
 19 So is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, "Was I not joking?"
 20 For lack of wood the fire goes out, And where there is no whisperer, contention quiets down.
 21 Like charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, So is a contentious man to kindle strife.
 22 The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels, And they go down into the innermost parts of the body.   (Prov. 26:17-22 NAU)

V. 17, Mr. Holding has an obvious history of "exposing" strifes in the lives of his critics.  That's at issue in the current libel lawsuit against him.

v. 18, you cannot escape the condemnation in this verse by pretending that your hurling of arrows was for the cause of "truth".  the person you give that defense to would have to decide whether you are being honest or are instead trying to mask your sinful love of gossip and meddling.

v. 20, the ending of "contention" is presumed a good think to the author.  You cannot escape the condemnation in that verse by saying you started a contention and strife "in the name of truth".  The person yo make that excuse to will have to decide whether you are being honest or dishonest about your alleged concern for "truth", and there is a possibility they will conclude that you couldn't care less about truth, you just love gossip.
v. 21, a general love of starting contentions and strifes is condemned by this author, and given Holding's history of it, no, his excuse that he only does it for the sake of the truth, is bullshit.  Holding has a genetic defect that causes him to love strife more than the average person.

Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett:

Type: Thematic (26:17–22). These proverbs discuss anyone who involves himself or herself in the affairs of others, who spreads gossip, or is a general source of mischief. Metaphors of violence and destruction dominate this text since these qualities characterize the aftereffects of the busybody.
26:17 Verse 17 could be translated, “Like one who seizes the ears of a passing dog is the one who meddles.”Busybodies cannot resist the temptation to inject themselves into private disputes, and they have no excuse for being surprised at the violent outbursts that are sure to follow.
26:18–19 Verses 18–19 could be taken to condemn any kind of antics (such as modern practical jokes played on a groom on his wedding day). While practical jokes can be destructive and hurtful, the larger context here implies that such may not be precisely the nature of the deceit implied here. Rather, this is a person who enjoys gossiping about or tampering with the affairs of other people. Such a person will purposefully confuse others and engage in a kind of social disinformation. When called to account, he or she will treat the whole thing as a game and be oblivious to all the hurt such actions created.
26:20–22 Verses 20–21 describe the slanderer as the fuel that maintains quarrels. In the absence of such a person, old hurts can be set aside, and discord can die a natural death. Even so, we often find a juicy tidbit of defamation irresistible. Verse 22 is a direct warning to the reader. Gossip makes its way to the innermost being of the hearer; that is, it corrupts the soul.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 214).

 

James Patrick Holding and his followers violate Proverbs 20:19

 19 He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, Therefore do not associate with a gossip.
(Prov. 20:19 NAU).

How could you possibly argue that you associate with James Patrick Holding, but you don't associate with a gossip?

Maybe you think the "gossip" condemned here is something different than James Patrick Holding's obsessive need to dig up personal strifes and evils in the lives of his critics?  Break out the chocolate, you are about to have a bad day.  Evangelical Christian scholar R.E. Murphy:

19 The first line is very similar to 11:3a. The slanderer is one who goes about talking, although the etymology of the word רכיל is difficult. Naturally, such a person is to be avoided. The parallel with the “open mouthed” (see Note 19.a.*) would seem to indicate a character that we would term “loose-lipped.”
* 19.a. This verb seems to have two meanings: “open” and “simple/foolish.” In either case, irresponsible speech is meant.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Proverbs.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 152)

The dictionary defines "loose-lipped" as "fond of gossip".  If you think Mr. Holding only yaks about issues of biblical scholarship, you might ask him

a) why he is being sued for defamation for the third time, and
b) why his lawyer has told him he won't be escaping this third one with a Phariseeic technicality, like he did the last two times, but must answer to a jury on the merits

Or maybe you are a clever person, you caught the gag, and you won't be asking Holding any such thing, because to do so is to perhaps reveal that you love hearing gossip, which makes you just as bad as the person who spreads gossip, see Proverbs 17:4.

James Patrick Holding AND his followers violate proverbs 18:5-8

 5 To show partiality to the wicked is not good, Nor to thrust aside the righteous in judgment.
 6 A fool's lips bring strife, And his mouth calls for blows.
 7 A fool's mouth is his ruin, And his lips are the snare of his soul.
 8 The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels, And they go down into the innermost parts of the body. (Prov. 18:5-8 NAU)

Once again, the fact that some strife is logically required in our search for justice, does not mean gossip is holy.  The fact that you can say you were searching for "truth" by inquiring into the strifes others have endured, doesn't mean you are free from the charge of loving gossip for the sake of gossip.  The person you speak with will have to decide whether you pay attention to strife so much because of your excuse that you are a truth-robot, or if that's just a bullshit excuse to cover up your sinful love of strife.  They might be reasonable to say you are full of shit, you only care about the thrill of gossip, you care nothing for actual truth.
This is more especially so with Holding's idiot followers who have been manifesting their spiritual depravity/immaturity for years. 

Holding's libelous words about me qualify as little more than the gossip and strife which this proverb condemns.  Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett says:

18:5–8 The chiasmus in vv. 6–7 is obvious (lips, mouth, mouth, lips). Somewhat less conspicuously, v. 5 refers to heeding evil talk at the gate, and v. 8 describes the pleasures that malicious slander can give. This section appears to be further commentary on 17:27–18:4. In official proceedings, whether they be court cases or community decisions, one obviously should not take the side of an evil person (v. 5). The odds of such happening are reduced by the fact that caustic and selfish people347 expose themselves by their words (vv. 6–7). On the other hand, many have a perverse attraction to malicious gossip (v. 8). This points to the need to be a judicious and thoughtful listener.
347 One needs to bear in mind that the “fool” of Proverbs is not a buffoon or simpleton. He or she is rather an obstinate, selfish, and obnoxious individual.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 164)

The word "caustic" means : "marked by incisive sarcasm" or "sarcastic in a scathing and bitter way".

Gee, Holding has never been guilty of being "caustic" has he?  Of course he has, Gary Habermas rebuked him for it according to email communications between the which I forced Holding to disclose, but which Habermas asked me not to divulge the contents of.  

Evangelical Christian scholar R. E. Murphy says:

6–7 Both of these verses deal with the organs of speech (lips/mouth used chiastically), as employed by a fool, and hence they point out the bad effects of his talk. 6 It is not clear if the “blows” in line b are to be understood as a punishment that the fool receives (therefore, in a judicial case), or merely as a violent dispute that is brought about by his heedless speech. 7 This verse is a drastic and dramatic description of the price the fool will have to pay for his unbridled speech: it is a deadly trap; see also vv 20–21.

8 This verse appears also in 26:22, where it is perhaps more suitable to the context. ...“Dainty morsels” is a common, if uncertain, translation. Experience bears out the attraction that gossip exerts over human beings; it enters deeply into a person; the second line suggests this penetration and perhaps the hearer’s relishing, if the translation of v 8a is correct. For harmful effects of gossip, cf. 16:28.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Word Biblical Commentary : Proverbs. 

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 135). Dallas: Word, Incorporated

Since Holding is obviously guilty of being obstinate and obnoxious gossip, and since he has never manifested the slightest desire to repent of these moral defects, you will have a difficult time trying to reconcile your belief that "scholarship is all that matters for a Christian teacher" with the bible, which requires teachers to be morally qualified too.

James Patrick Holding AND his followers violate Proverbs 17:4

 4 An evildoer listens to wicked lips; A liar pays attention to a destructive tongue. (Prov. 17:4 NAU)

Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett says:

17:4 Taking gossip seriously is itself a form of malice practiced by those who have no respect for the truth.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 158).

 To the best of my knowledge, with exception for a few idiots who replied with a few trifles on some of my blog posts indicating they are more interested in defending Holding, no follower of James Patrick Holding has ever asked for my side of any story.  The one that came close, chose to slink back into the shadows after I convinced him he was libeling me.

This proverb is interesting because it shows he thinks those who take slanderous gossip seriously without doing any checking, are themselves equally as corrupt as the gossiper himself.

If Holding babies read this and feel themselves exonerated since they might have asked a few cursory questions before they believed Holding's gossip, they are reminded that there is a third libel lawsuit currently pending against Holding.  He was forced to hire a lawyer, he filed a motio to dismiss, and the Court chose to delay ruling on it, forcing Holding to pay the expense of answering discovery.

The point is that it sure is funny how your faith-hero cannot escape this third lawsuit as easily as you think he should.  Perhaps you might consider that there are truths he isn't telling you about, and THAT's why his slam-dunk defenses aren't working.  Suggest you give him a call.  Then again, your profession of Christ is total bullshit in the first place, probably best if you didn't call him.