CADRE Comments

Dawkins has a new book,Outgrowing God. One can read the first chapter on Amazon.[1] The only argument he actually makes would say  "people stopped believing in their gods so you can stop believing in yours." Anything more elaborate is implied or read in. His fans talk about it as though there's a lot more. On Rauser's blog a "David" get's it wrong and Dawkins fan corrects him;

David• 8 days ago Not sure why logically speaking he would think the existence of multiple views in itself proves anythingAngry_Grasshopper He doesn't think that; it's a strawman of his actual point. Chapter 1 is availableat amazon. It takes about 5 minutes to read. I'd love for you to read it and maybe peek at at least the title of Chapter 2 and then come back and tell us if you think Dawkins is claiming that multiple views of god in and of itself proves God (YHWH) doesn't exist.[2] He is not saying that, quite true,what he is saying is not much better. Another po…

In comment section debate Pix writes:

"Or there might be one thing with the attributes of necessary, eternal and originator of the universe, but is not intelligent and does not have purpose. Thus, zero gods."


God arguments need not prove everything  I believe about God. I don't need to try and squeeze John 3:16 out of the ontological argument. We can stipulate the exact intent of an argument's goal. Moreover, arguments need not prove God's existence. We can argue that belief is warranted, That's the way I use God arguments. Not to prove God exists but that belief in God is warranted.

Now that means we can bring in more arguments to get to John 3:16 on. But let's see how far the one I made last time takes  us in that direction. the modal  argument:

1. God is either necessary or impossible.
2. God can be conceived without contradiction.
3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.
4. God is not impossible.
5. God's existence is a nec…

Charles Hartshorne 1897-2000
Modern Champion of the modal argument

What follows

There are actually those who think God gives us a totally separate body as a  resurrection body. Not to put anyone down but that strikes me as a bizarre idea. I've never heard it before,the vast majority of Christians have been understanding it as a renovation or renewal of the old body that dies. In discussion on the comment section of this blog Pixie asserts: "The early Christians believed Jesus was resurrected in a new body. That is what Daniel describes. That is what Paul saw. Mark is neutral on it. It is only by the time of Matthew and Luke that it changes."

I responded: --there is no evidence of that belief none at all, it contradicts Thomas testimony of placing his fingers in the nail prints:

To which he responds: "Paul wrote what he believed, that Jesus was resurrected in a new body," [1]

I disagree because the clear and dominating  image in this regard (Paul's view of resurrection body) is a seed being burred and rising up from the ground in growth.


42…

I take this opportunity to answer a comment by our loyal opponent Pixie
So like the resurrection. The over-arching point here is that you are trying to support a claim that is highly unlikely. It is far more likely that the disciples were mistaken about the resurrection, and the accounts we have today are based on guesswork and scripture for the crucifixion itself, followed by decades of embellishment.
I appreciate you see it differently, but you start from the assumption the resurrection happened, and filter everything through that. I do not. [1]
The thing that struck me the most about this comment is his assertion that I start with the assumption the resurrection happened. I have two responses for this. They will seem like contradictions but I think this points  up the paradox of apologetic.  On the one hand, my initial feeling was to respond: "of course I assume it happened because that assumption has made the biggest difference in my life.

But on the other hand, I went with the a…