The Follies of the Polemicist: A Debate with Ehrman.

[sirdelrio]

BIG AD HOMINEM

[hippo11222]

For the thousanth time people. This was not an organized debate. It was just a conversation that he had with him. NOTHING MORE.

[havock89]

"There is only one absolute, which is that there are no absolutes." Is the very definition of a self-refuting statement. If there are no absolutes, then one cannot make the claim that "there is only absolute, which is...."

I believe this poor fellow is only one step away from agnosticism and then atheism. This is the ultimate fruitlessness of protestantism.

[jcrebel18]

What's your opinion of Misquoting Jesus?

[nymphrenic]

Ehrman says what is behind his motivation is to undermine the Bible here:

watch?v=2xH93PSZ6fQ&feature=re­lated

Watch at exactly 1 hr in.

His motives are political, and so is his "strategy."

Good video, btw, Theologica, thanks for sharing your discussion with us.

[TheFunkyTheist]

Bart Ehrman as a critical New Testament scholar is mediocre, and overall OK. On philosophy though, he's a Dawkins. A sophist.

[Antisyncretism]

what did you mean be a naive view of inerrancy?

[Theologica37]

@Antisyncretism

I mean by naive inerrancy a view which affirms that Scriptural truth is pertaining ultimately to the literal rendering of the text, and that it is always there solely in that meaning. It would be that fundamentalist approach to Scripture which ignores Christian tradition and philosophy and refuses to take the texts on any other level but on the simple surface rendering.

[theowarner]

Where is this debate with you?

[Theologica37]

@theowarner

I did not specify (purposefully) where or when this took place. It was not a formal, organized conversation.

[theowarner]

@Theologica37

Then I assume you're lying about the whole thing.

[Theologica37]

@theowarner

Lol. This is the most childish comment you've ever made.

[theowarner]

@Theologica37

Interesting little personal attack there... It's a straight forward claim. If you're claiming to have debated Dr. Ehrman and have all these points to make about it, I would like to see the debate. If you can't produce it, I'm ignoring everything you have to say.

Pretty straight forward rule in scholarship, I would say. "I would like to examine the primary document." Yep... that seems pretty straight forward to me.

[Theologica37]

@theowarner

No, the personal attack was unarguably yours in suggesting almost unconsciously fast that I lied, which IS childish. A non-negotiable cry of deception is hardly 'scholarly', its the epitome of callow fundamentalism. Debate was not the only description I gave to the occurrence. That you've assumed this was a documented, planned disagreement (despite my *directly* telling you otherwise) is absurd-- are all conversations video taped? Recorded? Documented? ..Your charges are asinine.

[theowarner]

@Theologica37

Those are fascinating question, and I'm not interested in responding to your ridiculous comments. If you can't demonstrate this debate occurred, I'm ignoring the video and its contents.

[Theologica37]

@theowarner

That you find my pinning you to your attempted character assassinations "ridiculous" is revealing of your motives. I can do nothing for you if you believe that people only talk to each other before video camera and tape recorder. I have precisely relayed my disagreement with him, and I have given you more information on the situation than you deserve.

[theowarner]

@Theologica37

Again, none of that is interesting to me. If you can't demonstrate that this debate occurred, I'm ignoring the video and its contents.

[Theologica37]

@theowarner

Why do you continually assume (when I've now three times corrected you) that it was recorded, public, documented or planned conversation?

[theowarner]

@Theologica37

If you can't demonstrate the debate (I see you've downgraded it to a 'conversation' now) occurred, I'm going to ignore the video. This isn't really very complicated and I'm not making any assumptions (despite your assumption that I am.) Why don't we step into a stickam room or something I can explain to you this point in greater detail?

[Theologica37]

@theowarner

I have called it a conversation, a disagreement, a debate from the beginning. Did you watch the video? And I have already sent you a PM.

[SetonsH4ll]

theowarner's excuses are ridiculous. "I won't believe it, I just won't believe it! You're a liar!" There could be no better example of desperate denial than this right here. For whatever reason, theo holds Ehrman in too high esteem to believe he could be outwitted, ever. I greatly enjoyed reading his pretentious effort to save Ehrman from this.

[SetonsH4ll]

@theowarner

So, to be clear: you "CAN'T DEFEND" Bart Ehrman.

[theowarner]

@SetonsH4ll

It's been a while since we talked here... I have no loyalty to Bart Ehrman and no plan on defending him.

[TheFunkyTheist]

@theowarner You're kind of a dumbass for saying that. Just saying.

[smartwarlord]

If you take issue with Ehrman, who is a Conservative, then I could not fathom your response to my views.

[TheIconodule]

How and when did you discuss with Bart Erhman?

[ToriesPolishBoy]

Logical problem of evil? Didn't Alvin Plantinga point out there does not appear to be any formal contradiction between the existence of God and evil unless some atheist can unpack some hidden premise showing there actually is one? As I understand it, Plantinga argued the burden of proof falls on the atheist to find this premise, a challenge no atheist has yet answered. Yeah, it appears Ehrman appears to be not consistent in his views.

How were you in able to correspond with him, by the way?

[aether9000]

@ToriesPolishBoy omnipotents, omnibenevelence , and omniscience? These aren't contadictory?

[insidetrip101]

@aether9000

Actually, I would argue that they all imply one another. Omniscience and omnipotence is easy to see. The more something knows, then the more power it contains, because the ability to know something is to have a power above the known. To know all would be to have power over all, hence all powerful. Benevolence requires much more thought, but I think it comes down to knowing has implications of love. The more you know someone, the higher the capacity for love and enjoyment of them.

[MyContext]

@insidetrip101 It should be noted that given the disposition (emotional/values) of the entity - the more known of someone the more possible absolute disdain, hate, and a variety of other notions of angst become possible as well..

[ToriesPolishBoy]

@aether9000 Not by your mere assertion that they are. I take you're referring to the existence of evil and a being who possess all three of those attributes. Again, there doesn't appear to be any violation of the laws of logic, namely the law of non-contradiction. Saying God and evil exist is not the same as saying as "Bart Ehrman is a bachelor" and "Bart Ehrman is married." Or as according to Theo, Ehrman is an ethical relativist, yet find the problems of evil, something that entails

[aether9000]

@ToriesPolishBoy the theist hasn't demonstrated why ethical objectivism is even necessary to point to a problem of evil, since good/evil depends on the psycolology and environmental conditions of the ones involved; anything is else is arbititrary. You can say a god commandments are absolute or objective. But, in practice it is still just moral relativism because your god is relative(quran, bible, torah, etc).

[ToriesPolishBoy]

@aether9000 Entailed in the concept of evil is ethical objectivism. Much like entailed within the concept of a bachelor is the fact he's unmarried. So to say something is wrong, unless you're just spewing personal opinion, is appealing to an objective standard of right and wrong. But if you're stating your emotional opinion, I can't think of a good reason to accept your concept of right and wrong over mine. Therefore, if that's the case, there's no problem anymore.

Aether, when dealing in

[aether9000]

@ToriesPolishBoy one last thing, the notion of objective morality violates the is/ought distinction. Like your e.g. bachelors are unmarried is an objective fact. "Murder is wrong" is an ought statement. Morality can't be objective. But, you can have objective justification by considering the things like time and place.

[ToriesPolishBoy]

@aether9000 metaethics, good/evil are within the realm of ought and not is. Psychology and environmental conditions are ises. You see, morality is about pointing to a state of affairs that ought to be or ought not to be. For example, murder is wrong is referring to a prescriptive state of affairs and not to a descriptive state of affairs like psychology or environmental conditions.

Hey, I could very well be a rationally affirmed theist who isn't practicing a religion. And I think Muslims,

[aether9000]

@ToriesPolishBoy you seem very confused about the application of the is/ought distinction. Because ought implies can, there will always be associated facts with what we want out of the world. A FACT about all ought statements is that all their source is a mind that has natural urges, meaning morality is psycological. E.g. I ought to get a high paying job; engineering is a highpaying job; U of Toronto has a top tier engineering program; therefore, I ought to go to u of T to get my degree.

[ToriesPolishBoy]

@aether9000 Christians and Jews all believe God to be the greatest conceivable being. That's the God I'm talking about, which is neither arbitrary or relative.

[aether9000]

@ToriesPolishBoy it would still be relative, e.g. jews don't except jesus as god, therefore can't follow his teachings. And your forgeting other monotheism's like hinduism and sikhism, where all the regular arguments for the existence of god are consistent with, but hold different values. God is very subjective. Incase your surprised, hinduism is not a polytheism like many think.

[ToriesPolishBoy]

@aether9000 ethical objectivism if it is to have any bite, provocative. Those are the type of formal contradictions the Epicurean/logical problem of evil attempts to establish.

[JaffarDS]

@ToriesPolishBoy Yes, Plantinga did say that. He also created a free-will defense.

[MyContext]

@ToriesPolishBoy Granted there may be no contradiction, however, it is a bizarre state of affairs given the claims - assuming a god as depicted. It would violate many notions of perfection, but again that gets down to definitions - doesn't it.

@Theologica37 or anyone... How on balance how does one justify the claim of god being good given the atrocities and pettiness depicted?

[ToriesPolishBoy]

@MyContext To be honest, we're epistemically limited, so God might have more than a sufficient reason as to why he permits evil and suffering. Do amoebas understand why we do the things we do? Moreover, there are plenty of theodicies for the problem of evil. It might seem bizarre, but then again you would have to show how it violates a "notion of perfection." We're back to square one. Also, "notions of perfection" seems like a non-sequitur to me by the way

Furthermore, what's even more

[MyContext]

@ToriesPolishBoy If you are claiming ignorance of why God as depicted does horrid things...then you can't really call it good - can you? I simply acknowledge that I find it horrid. Given our limits, naturalism as you put it, is all that we actually know - the rest is an assertion that we currently have no way to affirm. So, yes the claim can be made, but the validity of the claims is highly questionable.

[ToriesPolishBoy]

@MyContext I'm not claiming ignorance, but limitation. And theists, in our limited perspective, have come up with sufficient reasons why God permits evil. If you simply find it horrid, subjectively, I see no reason to take your objection seriously because if you're just expressing opinion or emotion, which is antithetical to appealing to some objective standard of right and wrong that the Problem of Evil does.

"naturalism as you put it, is all that we actually know - the rest is an assertion

[MyContext]

@ToriesPolishBoy I agree - opinion/emotion is antithetical to appealing to some objective standard of right and wrong, however, the claim of God being good seems to demand a clarification as to what is being considered good. Which is a theological claim correct? The idea of anything being right or wrong appears to be an emotional question. Since, what would it matter if one didn't actually care - which, I equate as being an emotional stance.

[ToriesPolishBoy]

@MyContext that we currently have no way to affirm..." Do we have a way to affirm that claim to give credence to your epistemology without begging the question or being self-defeating? I believe there are some things we can know to be true not within the natural world such as mathematics, logic and morality.

[MyContext]

@ToriesPolishBoy Constructs such as mathematics, logic, morality, and numerous other conceptual notions are grounded in existence - each having a particular utility for our use in some fashion. Some such as mathematics & logic give a high degree of certainty - others such as feelings (->values->morality) are depictions of our experience and preferences.

[ToriesPolishBoy]

@MyContext bizarre is given metaphysical naturalism, we are just hairless apes who recently came to prominence on an insignificant planet within a backwater galaxy who have this concept of right and wrong. All other animals don't, but we do. Why? Now, that seems more unusual, unlikely and unexplainable given both naturalism and this phenomenon of moral awareness than reconciling the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being with evil.

[thunderbolt94]

Excellent video! I think that regardless of one's opinion on Bart Ehrman's as a New Testament scholar, his philosophical arguments in regards to the problem of evil are asinine.

[jcrebel18]

@thunderbolt94 Why do you say that? Or are you just agreeing with Theologica? :p