Isn't that kind of like: I'm a physician, but I almost don't like to use the word "physician" any more, because so many other physicians are all dogmatic about things like medical school, internships, human anatomy, germ theory, etc., that it just feels creepy to me... Like, "if you were a real doctor, you would wash your hands before doing invasive surgery."

---

If Christianity is real, why can't there be rules?

I would say most if not all of his debate material is contained in the book but it has a whole bunch more. One of the more interesting sections is the history of the explanations of the resurrection from the time it first started being questioned, 18th century IIRC. He has a new book called On Guard which is supposed to be an abridged version of this one, I think, though RF isn't really all that deep - it's written at the popular level and should be easily accessible to anyone with a college level brain.

Interesting the emotional reactions he draws, largely without any attempt to refute his arguments.

Edit: BTW, I highly recommend RF - well written and very well footnoted and indexed - even if you don't read it cover to cover, it's a great reference book, and the various sections can be read independently.

I think he specifically had in mind Christians who object to the idea that someone can be "reasoned" into the faith, as well as those who don't follow his arguments. He's just trying to show that the arguments are supplemental, not necessary, to being a Christian. If they speak to you they can be very helpful, if not, they don't matter.

You seem to be missing Hume's point. He is pointing out that even if we believe that there must be a necessarily existing First Cause, we don't have any reason to identify this First Cause with God. It's true that if you cross out the word "Deity" or "God" and put "Being" or "Beingness" in its place, then his argument seems specious. However, the very point at issue is whether we should identify God with Beingness. The fact that Aquinas and others in the Christian tradition have made this identification is not in itself reason to think this identification is correct (people incorrectly identify things all the time).

Also I kind of understand what Plantinga means when he talks about a necessarily existing object. But I am not sure what you mean when you talk about Being or Beingness. Do you mean to imply that this is a real property of objects, such that it "exists" independently of them in some way?

Arguments don't "speak to" some people but not others. Arguments are either good or bad. When someone deems a bad argument good or a good argument bad, it is because that person is stupid. No other reason.

Yes they do. Some people don't understand logical argumentation, and therefore the argument doesn't "speak" to them. What Craig is saying is that you don't have to understand high level philosophy to know you are Christian. Jesus promised He would send the Spirit and through the witness of the Spirit within us we may know the love of God, regardless of our intellectual ability. So if you don't understand the theistic arguments that is no reason to question your faith.

Well, if we're Thomists and Aquinas says, "and this (Beingness) we call God," then yes we should. By this I mean, if we're Euclidians and Euclid says, "and this (a polygon with three corners) we call a triangle," then shouldn't we call it a triangle?

Aquinas uses the term God in different ways. Sometimes he's talking about the Godhead (potential being); sometimes he's talking about God (actual being); and sometimes the synthesis of both. He makes it pretty clear how the terms are to be used, but henpecking bits and pieces makes his metaphysics nonsensical. You really have to start from the beginning and work your way through as the terms and concepts are developed. Unfortunately, that process is probably less troublesome for the non-philosopher than the philosopher, because you really can't read him through other philosophic systems.

In regard to your question, it's not phrased how I would think Aquinas would put it. While not completely accurate: it's not that beingness is a property of a thing; it's that thingness is a property of being. In a Thomistic sense, what an object is is the point where being stops and hence there's really no extrinsic property to an object.

Paging Not Rea - Oh, he's here.

So i love darkness over eternal bliss with the perfect God of the universe. Yeah that makes ****ing sense.

Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.

Is that a quote, or is that all you? Impressive, if it's you.

I think the problem is that the identification of God with Being is not a stipulative definition (as Euclid's axioms are). For instance, we've identified water with H2O, but that is not an a priori identification. Rather, it was a discovery of the nature of water--not something we could stipulate.

Now, if Aquinas is stipulatively defining God as Being, then fine, you are correct. But then the problem is determining whether this stipulative definition (i.e. Being) has anything to do with the notions of God that are common in Christian theology. In that case, (and I take it this is Hume's point), we don't know what this Necessary Being/First Cause is. It could be something like the entity referred to as "God" in the Abrahamic religions. Or it could be the physical earth. Or it could be something else entirely.

Yeah, unfortunately this isn't really helpful. As you say, I'm probably trying to make sense of him in more modern terms than his views will bear. Oh well, I suppose I should probably brush up on his views anyway.

Just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself a Thomist?

That's likely true, and I don't think Craig's view of "self-authenticating" faith is illogical or indefensible (unlike some of his other stuff).

But I would still be turned off to Christianity by this type of stuff. Craig strikes me as highly polarizing - there may be some uncertain agnostics who already identify with Christianity and fear atheism, or who have never been exposed to rhetoric before and are highly suggestible, who may be drawn closer to Christianity by Craig, but in general I think he's preaching to the choir.

He's good at wordplay, but I don't think he's much good at persuasion (as opposed to, say, C.S. Lewis).

Ok, here's the problem, and the reason Craig strikes me as a rather perverse individual.

Craig's arguments are very weakly connected to reality---if at all. (E.g. the KCA's bizarre premise that creation of matter is meaningful in a strong sense, despite the fact we have only ever observed conservation.) So these arguments have almost no persuasive value.

However, they do reinforce a misguided sense of moral priority common among fundamentalist Christians. Reinforcement is the last thing this community needs; it only redoubles the moral pressure felt by its members (in particular, women via the demonizing of female sexuality.)

Craig could do an actual service if he encouraged Christians to cultivate healthy self-skepticism. Instead he does the opposite...? Why?

Only you could go from the KCA to demonizing sexuality. Chom teach you that?

because it sells more books

Someone made a thoughtful criticism of Craig! I can't wait to dig into NotReady's refutation...

Hm.

You're quotes from Craig evidence "condemnatory Christianity"( can't seem to decide which should be capitalized or not as this is not Christianity).

"Judge Not" would bring you closer to the essence of Christianity and I am sure you will find this maxim in other religious systems. Whether he realizes it or not he is playing an exclusionary principle in the spirit of a Calvin or even Augustine.

As best I can say, the world contains in the hearts of ALL men the Christ Impulse through which we are gradually changing our very being through successive lives. (no, I'd rather not discuss "being" and leave that to the existentialists).

One can say that the Christ Impulse is cosmopolitan in that in its activities the structural particulars of nation, race, gender, clan and indeed religion are worked through by the individual man manifesting Love and Freedom.

The Christ Impulse is not a teaching of Love ( look to Buddhism for this) but an active Impulse in the world of Man . This "Freedom' to which I refer is not an abstraction but the ongoing activity of the human being who literally "makes his home" without coercion for if the Christ Being commanded this activity there would be no "Freedom". The Christ Being is not about coercion. One perspective of freedom (in the modern sense) is man's releasing himself from the past which is what is called "heredity".

None of the above can be effected without recurrent and successive lives. Before each and every man enters into an earthly life he has a "plan" to which he enters into agreement with the Christ Being in order to effect this improvement. When your mother and father met in Australia, far away from home in the USA, and married this was not happenstance or "probability laden" but part of the "plan".

There are very few (really very few) who know their life's work consciously. One can look at this in the sense of birds migrating south in the winter in that it appears to be an "instinctual" impulse in which you're mother and father met. None the less , it was planned. Who can say they are not free when one plans the house one is to live in and then builds the house. This was an example for understanding and shouldn't be taken as etched in stone for there are obviously events in the lives of men which are not karmic.

First, yeah, Craig realizes that he is in the Augustine/Calvin tradition.

Second, what you are calling "condemnatory Christianity" certainly seems like a form of Christianity to me. I am not sure what your basis for claiming otherwise, except for a misquoted half sentence from one of Jesus' sermons.

Third, don't you find it a bit too ironic to claim that exclusionary Christianity isn't real Christianity?

When he says darkness he is refering to sin. People love to lust, lie, fornicate, etc and because of this they wont become Christians. They feel that christianity doesnt fit the way they live and they dont want to be tied down to certain restrictions and feel guilty if they do sin. So they simply say I dont believe God and will live however I want because they love to sin (live in darkness).

Do you know even a single person that believes that Jesus Christ is god, that he came down to earth to redeem sinners so that they will not suffer eternal damnation, but has nonetheless decided to not be a Christian because they want to keep on lying, lusting, and fornicating?

Also, do you have any evidence that Christians lust, lie, and fornicate less than non-Christians?

Ah yes, so all those mormons, 7DA, JWs, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, reject Christianity because they love to sin.

iamunLUCKY, listen to your friend, go get some professional help. Find a Christian therapist if it makes you more comfortable.

No, I don't. Only ill will could make your statement and so who can speak to you? Thridden was put off by the quotes of Craig and I hoped to give some clarity to the situation according to my readings. I too, am put off by the quotes. It's not hard to imagine.

You really didn't read what I wrote or you couldn't write what you wrote. I'll repeat: Christianity or the Christ Impulse is an activity to which each and every one of us is involved and it is not necessary to run down to the local Presbyterian Church to "sign up".

If one attempted to "justify" the various Christian sects then one will also have to justify all of the various perspectives in the world as extant. Condemning Craig would also be the wrong course as we are really talking about you and me, no more and no less.

My attempts are to characterize and not condemn, as best I can, and underlying this is a searching comprehension as the world presents to one's active self. You're offended , living in ill will, and this manifests by your skeptical denial of any perspective to which I have pointed.

OK with me, but I'll say another way; The Christ Impulse is in movement, works through men,all of which are in need whether born Christian or not.

And by the way, i wasn't speaking to Craig in reference to Calvin and Augustine but clarifying to the reader who may not know that there is some historical comprehension here. The threads of thought that can come out of this particular statement can lead to an understanding of the geist of Christian theological thought or to put it clearly the thoughts of a rationality/logic which falls short in some respects.

We are all living in our age of science , rationality and logic and it is not sequestered away in some long robed participant of the scientific or educational milieu. Everyone is smart now days, only the technical aspects of the various specialities wall one "smart man" from another.

Making it more uncomfortable for some, I'll state that the comprehension and understanding of the Christ Being can and is accomplished by all men, irrespective of IQ or reading comprehension or whatever the elitists think in their separation of Man from Man. The best in Man manifests in the Christian Love, a Redemptive happening.

For starters, I think we can infer that 'being' or 'to be' is the proximate cause of all things. Every thing can be said to have being; there is no thing that does not have being; and if a thing were deprived of being, it would not be. From this, I think we can conclude that being is the first and necessary cause of all things, which isn't exactly earth-shattering because things are existents and existents exist, are or have being.

Now, I agree that the real question is why we, or Aquinas, should identify God as being. Briefly, when we take into account what the prophets, mystics and those acknowledged as having had some sort of glimpse of God are saying, what they're saying about God sounds an awful lot like what we could say about being. Being transcends all existents; being is all-powerful in the sense that there is literally nothing to delimit it; being can't by definition be other-caused and hence is it's own cause; being is all there ever was and all that could possibly be; etc… Probably the most significant for Aquinas, though, is God's revelation to Moses as, "I Am that I Am," which is taken as the self-reference, self-definition of being. And because being reveals itself to man is why it's not treated as a null predicate or some sort of impersonal natural force. In short, being is personal and, as Aquinas gets into as did Aristotle, the grasp of being is the first act of the intellect when we know first that a thing is and that we are (I am). That we have that 'intuition of being' is why being is personal (literally, we are it) and because being is personable is why Aquinas calls it God.

I had no real idea what people were talking about when they referenced God other than just some vague, insubstantial term or some anthropomorphous entity. The Bible made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, in terms of conceptualizing God and just trying to believe in God as posited in the Bible didn't bring about any sort of understanding or revelation for me, either. Neither were apologists like Craig and Plantinga of much help. I mean I can follow their arguments, but as to what they actually mean when they say God, frankly I had no idea and to some extent, still don't. Like the Bible, IMO, they posit God and then define him into existence, which is fine if one already has a conception of God or believes in him, but does very little for me in terms of getting to God. So, I plodded my way through the Summa, and I came to what I think to be a logical and conceptual understanding of God from doing so. Whether my conception of God is what others think of by God I don't know and sometimes I have my doubts that it is. Nonetheless, I know what I'm thinking about when I'm thinking about God and so I do think of God in a Thomistic sense.

hey all,

sorry i haven't been active since yesterday...i made this thread during my lunch break and dont get a chance to do that every day...ill respond and add a new post about the next topic when i get a chance to read further...