Convince me to believe

[Former President tack50]

It makes absolutely zero logical sense to view Islam and Mormonism as "con artistry", only to regard the other Abrahamic cults religions as being somewhat credible.

I can sort of see the argument for Mormonism at least (although I am not well educated on mormonism or its origins at all).

However I am personally someone who would criticise Islam's "origin story" quite a bit; but despite the many critiques I would do, "con artist" would definitely not be among them (again not super educated on islam so disclaimers apply)

[John Dule]

Oh, definitely. I think every nonbeliever should watch his stuff in order to get the best possible impression of Christians.

The irony of sardonic mockery including a suggestion that the person being mocked gives a bad impression of Christians must fly over your head.

I watched the speech he did at Biola I think you’ve said you watched and laughed at, and I find it difficult to believe someone watched that and didn’t seriously question their prior beliefs. I was rather sympathetic to cessationism for a long time before discovering Keener, and he transformed my theological thoughts on miracles. To pretend that the bias of your own culture is self-evidently true and not in need of arguments in its favor because it’s obviously true is to assert that one’s beliefs are unjustified.

Yes, this is how preaching to the choir works. The converted sit in reverent awe while the rest of us roll our eyes.

[Mr. Smith]

Oh, definitely. I think every nonbeliever should watch his stuff in order to get the best possible impression of Christians.

The irony of sardonic mockery including a suggestion that the person being mocked gives a bad impression of Christians must fly over your head.

I watched the speech he did at Biola I think you’ve said you watched and laughed at, and I find it difficult to believe someone watched that and didn’t seriously question their prior beliefs. I was rather sympathetic to cessationism for a long time before discovering Keener, and he transformed my theological thoughts on miracles. To pretend that the bias of your own culture is self-evidently true and not in need of arguments in its favor because it’s obviously true is to assert that one’s beliefs are unjustified.

Yes, this is how preaching to the choir works. The converted sit in reverent awe while the rest of us roll our eyes.

You make a large presumption that the eye-rollers are majority or a sizable half and the converted are a minority. Schade.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes, this is how preaching to the choir works. The converted sit in reverent awe while the rest of us roll our eyes.

Of course! Why would you need to justify a disbelief in miracles when you can just cite the authority of the culture of Western modernity and its position on miracles? Especially given its obvious superiority to ignoramuses in the third world and the past! I mean, they don’t have Libertarianism way back when.

[John Dule]

Yes, this is how preaching to the choir works. The converted sit in reverent awe while the rest of us roll our eyes.

Of course! Why would you need to justify a disbelief in miracles when you can just cite the authority of the culture of Western modernity and its position on miracles? Especially given its obvious superiority to ignoramuses in the third world and the past! I mean, they don’t have Libertarianism way back when.

I don't feel a need to justify my disbeliefs to you because whenever I do, you just abandon the conversation in order to avoid addressing my points. This has happened at least four times, and I don't feel any obligation to get bogged down in a fifth.

[Kingpoleon]

I don't feel a need to justify my disbeliefs to you because whenever I do, you just abandon the conversation in order to avoid addressing my points. This has happened at least four times, and I don't feel any obligation to get bogged down in a fifth.

Usually, this occurs only after a couple days of back-and-forth, and it is true you usually get the last word in. This stems in part from a worry of mine that the distinction between our presuppositions is so great that rational debate may be intrinsically nonsensical. I first came across this when discussing TAG with a very intelligent atheist friend of mine and heard him reject the second premise by arguing that the laws of logic are probably derivative of the laws of physics. I don’t think one of us is irrational, per se, but rather that we disagree even on the nature of reasoning, about which there can be no reasoned debate.

I nevertheless like to hear Arguments Against Miracles because I’d like to hear a plausible one so I can understands the conclusions of much of liberal theology, which rejects miracles by and large.

[John Dule]

I don't feel a need to justify my disbeliefs to you because whenever I do, you just abandon the conversation in order to avoid addressing my points. This has happened at least four times, and I don't feel any obligation to get bogged down in a fifth.

Usually, this occurs only after a couple days of back-and-forth, and it is true you usually get the last word in. This stems in part from a worry of mine that the distinction between our presuppositions is so great that rational debate may be intrinsically nonsensical. I first came across this when discussing TAG with a very intelligent atheist friend of mine and heard him reject the second premise by arguing that the laws of logic are probably derivative of the laws of physics. I don’t think one of us is irrational, per se, but rather that we disagree even on the nature of reasoning, about which there can be no reasoned debate.

I nevertheless like to hear Arguments Against Miracles because I’d like to hear a plausible one so I can understands the conclusions of much of liberal theology, which rejects miracles by and large.

Don't you reject most miracles? You've called yourself a "cessationist" in the past.

[Kingpoleon]

I don't feel a need to justify my disbeliefs to you because whenever I do, you just abandon the conversation in order to avoid addressing my points. This has happened at least four times, and I don't feel any obligation to get bogged down in a fifth.

Usually, this occurs only after a couple days of back-and-forth, and it is true you usually get the last word in. This stems in part from a worry of mine that the distinction between our presuppositions is so great that rational debate may be intrinsically nonsensical. I first came across this when discussing TAG with a very intelligent atheist friend of mine and heard him reject the second premise by arguing that the laws of logic are probably derivative of the laws of physics. I don’t think one of us is irrational, per se, but rather that we disagree even on the nature of reasoning, about which there can be no reasoned debate.

I nevertheless like to hear Arguments Against Miracles because I’d like to hear a plausible one so I can understands the conclusions of much of liberal theology, which rejects miracles by and large.

Don't you reject most miracles? You've called yourself a "cessationist" in the past.

I said I’m sympathetic to cessationism’s concerns. I don’t really think a Calvinist thinker has articulated the view I hold to, nor could one, since I do think Wesley performed miracles.

But a hermeneutic of suspicion is not the same as a hermeneutic of total rejection.

[If my soul was made of stone]

No system of metaphysical belief can be entirely justified through sophistic logical chicanery or what is perceived to be objective empirical evidence. Ultimately, all such beliefs rest in some form on faith and irrationality, as we are imperfect beings without the knowledge afforded to gods and irrational beings driven by instinct and passion that are not meant to hold it. It is affirming to except a degree of epistemic subjectivity in the meanings of what one deems resonant. I'm told that it's my schizotypy that makes me perceive additional layers of meaning in what are typically considered mundane occurrences, but I have always felt that this diagnosis is as much the pathologization of non-conformity and non-linearity of the sort once associated with spiritual insight as one of genuine distress and disorder, and there is a transcendent healing force in finding such meaning in the world around me.

The idea that any system of such belief is uniquely rational or empirically verifiable is thus ridiculous to me, and what makes debates like these so tedious and vacant (assuming, of course, that one's belief genuinely stems from that rather than using it as an ex post facto justification for one's irrational belief, which is a pointless exercise in disguising one's own nature and motivations that warrants cutting the middleman). Rational ideas can obviously be derived from one's instinctual first principles, but such axioms cannot themselves be justified by what they beget. We can find evidence in the world around us for our beliefs, but it is just as subject to our priors and means of perception as the beliefs that lead us to forge those connections of meaning.

[John Dule]

You've called yourself a "cessationist" in the past.

I said I’m sympathetic to cessationism’s concerns.

I am a cessationist - I do not believe miracles continue in the present day.