It doesn't matter if Loftus knows about the kids book, because Loftus holds to his atheism in an UNFALSIFIABLE manner, and he has stated that he would not follow Christ even if he were to admit that Christianity were proved.
I.E., he bluntly states in WIBA that the answer to why anything exists at all is "CHANCE"...that is his word, CHANCE.
Once you hold to that irrationally undemonstrable assumption, then there is NO PROOF, even IN PRINCIPLE that would ever suffice.
Think I am wrong?
Suggest ANY Proof you want and I will show how he could reject it based on his "control beliefs".
I might add that although the young pastor argues that people don't come to faith through argument...my own experience falsifies this, but that is another story...Lofutus states in WIBA an atheist the Two of the Three key reasons he says he decoverted were basedon emotional factors. And, as I read his story...in WIBA at least since it is different in his priro book (WIRC)...the emtional factors and disappointment made him susceptible to "new information".
Heck, he does not even basically believe that the "reasons" in his book will initally "deconvert" anyone, but that it will act as a "slow POISON".
Again, that is his word...POISON.
In my case, his prior books were actually an INNOCULATION.
Morrison that is absolutely untrue. Loftus has said a number of times, that an appearance comparable to what Paul experienced on the road to Damascus would be enough to convince him of the truth of Christianity. He has said that if God can do that without violating Paul's free will, then why can he not do it for him (Loftus)?
I am not agreeing with Loftus, but you are misrepresenting his position.
Crude, then give me an example of something that would convince you, and I will show you...IF you subscribe to the Loftus position that all can be explained by "chance"...that you are delusional.
Crude, then give me an example of something that would convince you, and I will show you...IF you subscribe to the Loftus position that all can be explained by "chance"...that you are delusional.
Convince me? Of what? That God exists? No need - pretty much my position anyway.
I just said I think it's a (common) mistake to conflate 'proof that would satisfy me' with 'falsifiability'. I may well be agreeing with you, given what you're saying about how any proof can be rejected.
Really, why give examples? Just reference PZ Myers. He admits it outright, much to the consternation of guys like Coyne.
9 comments:
It doesn't matter if Loftus knows about the kids book, because Loftus holds to his atheism in an UNFALSIFIABLE manner, and he has stated that he would not follow Christ even if he were to admit that Christianity were proved.
I.E., he bluntly states in WIBA that the answer to why anything exists at all is "CHANCE"...that is his word, CHANCE.
Once you hold to that irrationally undemonstrable assumption, then there is NO PROOF, even IN PRINCIPLE that would ever suffice.
Think I am wrong?
Suggest ANY Proof you want and I will show how he could reject it based on his "control beliefs".
I might add that although the young pastor argues that people don't come to faith through argument...my own experience falsifies this, but that is another story...Lofutus states in WIBA an atheist the Two of the Three key reasons he says he decoverted were basedon emotional factors. And, as I read his story...in WIBA at least since it is different in his priro book (WIRC)...the emtional factors and disappointment made him susceptible to "new information".
Heck, he does not even basically believe that the "reasons" in his book will initally "deconvert" anyone, but that it will act as a "slow POISON".
Again, that is his word...POISON.
In my case, his prior books were actually an INNOCULATION.
Morrison that is absolutely untrue. Loftus has said a number of times, that an appearance comparable to what Paul experienced on the road to Damascus would be enough to convince him of the truth of Christianity. He has said that if God can do that without violating Paul's free will, then why can he not do it for him (Loftus)?
I am not agreeing with Loftus, but you are misrepresenting his position.
I think people mangle the word 'falsifiable' when they change that to mean "what would personally convince me".
anon, I am not representing Loftus, but you are.
Loftus plainly says in his supplemetal book to WIBA, Personal Reflections, that he would ot follow Christ even if he were to admit it were proved.
That is because he thinks he is in a position to judge God.
Now he did say something about the "Damascus Road" experience that you mention, but he also said that he would not follow Christ.
Which is what I said.
But I also said that, given his belief in "chance", his postion is unfalsifiable.
In other words, even with such an experience he would pass it off as something else.
Crude, then give me an example of something that would convince you, and I will show you...IF you subscribe to the Loftus position that all can be explained by "chance"...that you are delusional.
I chuckled just a little bit at the typo "for mare", because everyone wants a pony. I'll be using that one in the future.
@Anonymous: "He has said that if God can do that without violating Paul's free will, then why can he not do it for him (Judas)"
I think Paul already answered that question, in Romans 9:6-24.
If Calvinism is true then faith is simply a gift from God that Loftus has yet to receive.
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Can we blame the individual for their unbelief if the Creator has purposed that individual to be an object of wrath?
Morrison,
Crude, then give me an example of something that would convince you, and I will show you...IF you subscribe to the Loftus position that all can be explained by "chance"...that you are delusional.
Convince me? Of what? That God exists? No need - pretty much my position anyway.
I just said I think it's a (common) mistake to conflate 'proof that would satisfy me' with 'falsifiability'. I may well be agreeing with you, given what you're saying about how any proof can be rejected.
Really, why give examples? Just reference PZ Myers. He admits it outright, much to the consternation of guys like Coyne.
Post a Comment