My beliefs as explained in my profile are also based on 'personal evidence'.

How wonderful it is to place your beliefs just out of reach of scrutiny. And convenient.

Mick wrote:Again, all he is saying is that you can know that christianity is true despite the other evidences. Here the tesitmony of the holy spirit is a defeater for just about anything you throw at him. I dont see much wrong in this for the believer.

Which again raises the question of why on earth Craig bothers to hold debates at all, when any argument that the opponent puts to him can ultimately be defeated with I have the internal testimony of the holy spirit?

Picture a grand conspiracy against joe. His enemies tailor great evidence in his disfavor-they make it look like joe committed murder. Theres dna evidence, fake videos, etc. for any external and objective viewer, joe looks guilty. But what does joe think? Well, joe knows deep inside he did no such thing. He cant prove it, he cant show it, and he knows the public evidence is against him, but he stands fast in his innocence.

This is what craig is getting at. Joe doesnt believe his innocence in faith or wilfull ignorance, he rests on his inner experiences.

I expect most people who believe the Illuminati are out to get them have an inner experience that this is true. This, of course, does not mean that it is true.

John P. M. wrote:Of course it's possible that Craig has had this experience (in other words, that he's not lying about it), but if so he can't use it to convince others of the truth of his beliefs. So that's probably why he goes to such great lengths to come up with philosophical arguments that he feels he can use for that purpose. But he shouldn't really do that either. Sure, it says in the Bible that the believer should always be prepared to defend his/her beliefs, but it's quite clear from numerous passages that you are either called by God and therefore 'get it', or you're not and don't/can't. This goes all the way from the sayings of Jesus ('pearls before swine', 'narrow gate', 'shake dust off feet', 'hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children' etc.) to 1. Corinthians 1:17-31, and probably more.

I have a hard time seeing though, how this kind of revealed truth cannot be said to work for other positions as well (well, I can see how one would say it cannot if one is living within one of the 'boxes' that claim such revealed truths, but not if viewed from the outside, and more objectively).

I know something you don't know and if you follow me I can show you. But you have to believe I can. Trust me



FFS. Jesus really was slime when you boil it all down.

Mick wrote:

Xeno wrote:

Mick wrote:Evidence accessible to just one person, for instance is private evidence

How do you distinguish true "private evidence" from (a) falsehood, and (b) delusion?

If two people have different "private evidence" how do you determine which of them (if either) is correct?

Objectively?.i dont know. Craigs point doesnt concern it.

But he claims his personal evidence is objective evidence. If he kept it to himself, nobody would give a shit.

I remember one time I was wandering around Covent Garden, and turning a corner, I almost bumped into a lady of mature years, carrying two rather heavy bags of shopping. We did the little dance thing when two people try to get out of each other's way, and finally I stood to one side to let her pass.

After she'd gone past, she turned around and said, "You're part of the MI5 team that's tailing me, aren't you?".

I replied that I wasn't[*], and she shook her head, and walked off muttering.

The point being that, to this day, that lady might be wondering around London with the inner conviction that the chap she bumped into that day was physical proof that MI5 was keeping tabs on her - and inner conviction that was and is completely false.

[*] I considered saying "Of course not. I'm CIA - he's MI5 over there", but then thought better of it.

I remember back when I was a Christian (well, not a real Christian mind you, because if so I would have believed the same things Mick believes) there was a story going around the congregations of how two female proselytizers had knocked on the door of this person, he came out with a bloody knife in his hand, and it turned out he had just killed someone. But for some reason he didn't harm these two women. Later, so the story goes, when asked by the police why he didn't harm the two women, he said he had seen two large angels standing on either side of them.

This was a story that was taken as literally true by us, and we saw it as strengthening our faith in that angels were with us, even though we couldn't actually see them ourselves.

In hindsight, it was more likely - if true in any way at all - a story about a crazed killer on PCP.

[spooky voice] -But how can we be suuure...? Ooooh wooooh! [/spooky voice]

Mick wrote:
Picture a grand conspiracy against joe. His enemies tailor great evidence in his disfavor-they make it look like joe committed murder. Theres dna evidence, fake videos, etc. for any external and objective viewer, joe looks guilty. But what does joe think? Well, joe knows deep inside he did no such thing. He cant prove it, he cant show it, and he knows the public evidence is against him, but he stands fast in his innocence.

You are equivocating between two kinds of "internal evidence." There is Joe's kind, and the Holy Spirit's kind, and these are not analogous. Joe's kind of internal evidence is based on actions that Joe took. Joe knows he never took the action to commit the murder, despite the evidence standing against him. The Holy Spirit's kind of internal evidence is based on actions that an outside actor took. William Lane Craig does not believe in the Resurrection because of Joe's kind of evidence, he believes because an outside actor told him it was true. The example of Joe only serves to demonstrate how William Lane Craig's evidence is not, in fact, based on anything he personally knows to be true in the same way that Joe personally knows he did not commit murder.

Paul G wrote:

Mick wrote:

Xeno wrote:

Mick wrote:Evidence accessible to just one person, for instance is private evidence

How do you distinguish true "private evidence" from (a) falsehood, and (b) delusion?

If two people have different "private evidence" how do you determine which of them (if either) is correct?

Objectively?.i dont know. Craigs point doesnt concern it.

But he claims his personal evidence is objective evidence. If he kept it to himself, nobody would give a shit.

Objective evidencd for you? No, he doesnt.

Stormcrow wrote:

Mick wrote:
Picture a grand conspiracy against joe. His enemies tailor great evidence in his disfavor-they make it look like joe committed murder. Theres dna evidence, fake videos, etc. for any external and objective viewer, joe looks guilty. But what does joe think? Well, joe knows deep inside he did no such thing. He cant prove it, he cant show it, and he knows the public evidence is against him, but he stands fast in his innocence.

You are equivocating between two kinds of "internal evidence." There is Joe's kind, and the Holy Spirit's kind, and these are not analogous. Joe's kind of internal evidence is based on actions that Joe took. Joe knows he never took the action to commit the murder, despite the evidence standing against him. The Holy Spirit's kind of internal evidence is based on actions that an outside actor took. William Lane Craig does not believe in the Resurrection because of Joe's kind of evidence, he believes because an outside actor told him it was true. The example of Joe only serves to demonstrate how William Lane Craig's evidence is not, in fact, based on anything he personally knows to be true in the same way that Joe personally knows he did not commit murder.

The point of the analogy was just to show that it is not so absurd that one can believe some proposition despite great external evidence or public evidence. It was not meant to address your concerns, so you point is moot.

Mick wrote:it is question begging to call his experience some weird emotional state, thats something in need of argument.

Poppycock plain and simple. Because, wait for it, we have evidence that people cook up weird shit in the televisions inside their heads. Some people make a living out of doing this in an entertaining fashion for others to read, such as J. K. Rowling. The very existence of fiction as a literary genre provides a mountain of evidence for the human capacity to engage in grandiose fabrication. As does mythology. Indeed, I've experienced this capacity first hand during a hospital stay whilst being treated for meningitis, when, as a result of being cooked at 104°F, my brain decided to replace the nurse checking my stats with a six foot cockroach, complete with intricately detailed visuals. Now I don't even need to be an entomologist to know that six foot cockroaches don't exist in real life, but thanks to my entomological interests, I decided to make the most of this strange moment, and see if I could determine what species of cockroach I was hallucinating, based upon the visible anatomy thereof. I didn't for one moment regard it as real, and indeed, thanks to having spent some time paying attention in science class, I know there are numerous sound reasons why six foot cockroaches cannot exist today, though a return to Carboniferous era conditions could see that change of course.

The simple fact is, and I know you don't like real world facts when they get in the way of your apologetics, Mick, that a large body of evidence is available, pointing to the human ability to make shit up, and a similar body of evidence to the effect that people are motivated to make shit up when doing so provides them with an emotional comfort blanket. Politicians do this all the time, in order to sell their beloved ideological fantasies, and in some instances it's farcically blatant. Likewise, enforcers of conformity to mythology-based doctrines rely upon this trait, in order to keep their blind assertions and apologetic fabrications alive, a process that's becoming increasingly untenable in a world where free access to information, combined with the manifest success of vast swathes of scientific endeavour, are combining to render mythological assertions superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

Since we know for a fact that people are capable of making shit up, and in some instances said made up shit manifestly bears the stamp of ex recto fabrication, a fact that is supported by a large body of reliable, public evidence, then asking the basic question "is this person making shit up?" should be the first question we ask, when faced with grandiose and remarkable claims. Since Craig's claims (and those of other supernaturalists with an enthusiasm for the same mythology) are remarkable in the extreme, we need something a little more substantive than "the television in my head says so" to support those claims, and Craig doesn't have this, plain and simple. Because if he did have genuine, reliable evidence to support his claims, he would be able to present that evidence, and that evidence would withstand critical scrutiny by multiple observers. Instead, all he has is the usual apologetic hot air that we see emanating from supernaturalists on a regular basis. This discoursively encephalitic guff he wibbles about the so-called "self-authenticating evidence of the holy spirit" is nothing more than efflorescent prose translating more succinctly to "what I cook up in the television in my head counts for more than reality". If you want us to think otherwise, Mick, then start providing some beef, instead of the usual discoursive shit sandwiches we see from the fatuous world of apologetics.

Mick wrote:Theres no a priori defining, its argued in his work.

Once again, complete cock. He's asserting that his pet magic entity talks to him, and tells him that the scribblings of piss-stained Middle eastern nomads purportedly count for more than hard empirical evidence. He's manifestly treating a priori assertions as conclusions, then trying to work backwards, via the construction of fanciful apologetic castles in the air, in an attempt to wish his magic man into existence.

Mick wrote:But to know that, youd have to read his books along with plantingas. We both know you havent done that, so why the bore?

Because we have enough public statements available free of charge to determine that he's making shit up, without lining his pockets.

Mick wrote:

Xeno wrote:How do you distinguish true "private evidence" from (a) falsehood, and (b) delusion?

If two people have different "private evidence" how do you determine which of them (if either) is correct?

Objectively?.i dont know. Craigs point doesnt concern it.

Well, if there exists no critical test to distinguish his particular brand of staring glassy-eyed at the television inside his own head, from that of some inmate of a special hospital who thinks he's an emissary from the planet Zarg, purportedly sent to warn us about an imminent invasion by hyper-intelligent snails from the planet Splonk, why should we give this individual any more credence than we would the mental patient?

Mick wrote:

virphen wrote:No, no argument needed. Given the two alternatives, an example of a well documented phenomenon (delusions and hallucinations) vs an explanation that is unverifiable and lacks any evidence at all, it is a true no-brainer when it comes to determining what is overwhelmingly more likely.

Unless of course, you're infected with the religion virus.

there is a difference btween your knowing that craig had that experience and his knowing it. Youre trying to shoehorn this debate into one of public evidence.

This might have something to do with the fact that public evidence is reliable, whereas declaiming that the contents of the television inside your head constitute some fantastic brand of wisdom that everyone else should adopt, is all too frequently the pursuit of charlatans, fraudsters and outright fruit loops. I might as well try and claim that my six foot cockroach was fucking real, and at bottom, I'd have just as much reason to do so as Craig has to try and sell his magic man.

Mick wrote:

virphen wrote:No, no argument needed. Given the two alternatives, an example of a well documented phenomenon (delusions and hallucinations) vs an explanation that is unverifiable and lacks any evidence at all, it is a true no-brainer when it comes to determining what is overwhelmingly more likely.

Unless of course, you're infected with the religion virus.

there is a difference btween your knowing that craig had that experience and his knowing it.

Firstly, the evidence is minor, and it's easy enough for me to for the sake of argument preclude the idea that he's lying which puts us in exactly the same position to consider his experience. Other than of course, my not being infected with the desire for it to be real.

Mick wrote:
Youre trying to shoehorn this debate into one of public evidence.

I don't recognise the difference. If Craig wants to consider his faith "reasonable" he should absolutely subject his "personal evidence" to the same sort of scrutiny as we'd subject any other evidential claim. He quite clearly does not, and will not.

Mick wrote:

Paul G wrote:

Mick wrote:

Xeno wrote:
How do you distinguish true "private evidence" from (a) falsehood, and (b) delusion?

If two people have different "private evidence" how do you determine which of them (if either) is correct?

Objectively?.i dont know. Craigs point doesnt concern it.

But he claims his personal evidence is objective evidence. If he kept it to himself, nobody would give a shit.

Objective evidencd for you? No, he doesnt.

So what the hell has he been doing to make money all these years?

Mick wrote:

Stormcrow wrote:

Mick wrote:
Picture a grand conspiracy against joe. His enemies tailor great evidence in his disfavor-they make it look like joe committed murder. Theres dna evidence, fake videos, etc. for any external and objective viewer, joe looks guilty. But what does joe think? Well, joe knows deep inside he did no such thing. He cant prove it, he cant show it, and he knows the public evidence is against him, but he stands fast in his innocence.

You are equivocating between two kinds of "internal evidence." There is Joe's kind, and the Holy Spirit's kind, and these are not analogous. Joe's kind of internal evidence is based on actions that Joe took. Joe knows he never took the action to commit the murder, despite the evidence standing against him. The Holy Spirit's kind of internal evidence is based on actions that an outside actor took. William Lane Craig does not believe in the Resurrection because of Joe's kind of evidence, he believes because an outside actor told him it was true. The example of Joe only serves to demonstrate how William Lane Craig's evidence is not, in fact, based on anything he personally knows to be true in the same way that Joe personally knows he did not commit murder.

The point of the analogy was just to show that it is not so absurd that one can believe some proposition despite great external evidence or public evidence. It was not meant to address your concerns, so you point is moot.

What is Craig's internal evidence and how is it similar to Joe's?

We could take that allegory much further - if we remove the presupposition that Joe is innocent and thus his "knowledge" that he didn't commit the murder is correct, there is a point where the evidence is so overwhelming that Joe should very well consider that he did perform the murder, and that the memory has been suppressed or he did it under the influence of drugs or alcohol or in some other psychologically altered state.

And it is that presupposition that is the bait & switch here.

Mick wrote:

Stormcrow wrote:

Mick wrote:
Picture a grand conspiracy against joe. His enemies tailor great evidence in his disfavor-they make it look like joe committed murder. Theres dna evidence, fake videos, etc. for any external and objective viewer, joe looks guilty. But what does joe think? Well, joe knows deep inside he did no such thing. He cant prove it, he cant show it, and he knows the public evidence is against him, but he stands fast in his innocence.

You are equivocating between two kinds of "internal evidence." There is Joe's kind, and the Holy Spirit's kind, and these are not analogous. Joe's kind of internal evidence is based on actions that Joe took. Joe knows he never took the action to commit the murder, despite the evidence standing against him. The Holy Spirit's kind of internal evidence is based on actions that an outside actor took. William Lane Craig does not believe in the Resurrection because of Joe's kind of evidence, he believes because an outside actor told him it was true. The example of Joe only serves to demonstrate how William Lane Craig's evidence is not, in fact, based on anything he personally knows to be true in the same way that Joe personally knows he did not commit murder.

The point of the analogy was just to show that it is not so absurd that one can believe some proposition despite great external evidence or public evidence. It was not meant to address your concerns, so you point is moot.

Allow me to break it down more clearly for you. Your analogy is poor.

Why is this? Because the analogy of Joe has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual situation of Dr. Craig. The reason for this is because of your equivocation between different types of "internal evidence," which I thought I had made clear, but I will elaborate further to ensure total clarity of argument.

If you had wanted your analogy to actual be relevant to Dr. Craig's situation, it should have gone like this.

Joe has no internal knowledge of what actions he took last night. However, there is evidence that he committed a murder. Indeed, there is so much airtight evidence against him, that for him to have not committed the murder is a physical impossibility. However, an unseen, undetectable, outside actor has told Joe, internally, that he did not, in fact, commit the murder. Joe attempts to use this in court as a defense. In the real world, were we all live, Joe's beliefs are insane.

William Lane Craig has no internal knowledge that the Resurrection occurred, because his actions were not a part of it. Indeed, the evidence against it is airtight, because it is a physical impossibility for it to have occurred. However, an unseen, undetectable, outside actor has told Dr. Craig, internally, that the Resurrection actually happened. Dr. Craig tries to use this as evidence that it did, in fact, happen. Dr. Craig is laughed out of the argument, because those are the statements of an insane man.

Now do you grasp why your analogy was so poor and clearly an attempt to equivocate between Joe's reasonable internal belief, and Dr. Craig's unreasonable internal belief? In your analogy, Joe's statement of "I didn't do it," would actually be considered evidence of innocence, however unlikely. In my analogy, Joe's statement of "An invisible ghost told me I didn't do it," would be considered evidence of insanity.

Craig uses a lot of words. May I summarize?

Religion and faith is a feeling.

Paul G wrote:

Mick wrote:

Paul G wrote:

Mick wrote:
Objectively?.i dont know. Craigs point doesnt concern it.

But he claims his personal evidence is objective evidence. If he kept it to himself, nobody would give a shit.

Objective evidencd for you? No, he doesnt.

So what the hell has he been doing to make money all these years?

Arguing that Christianity is true. You need to understand that there is a difference between the evidences showing that Christianity is true and the evidences for which he knows Christianity is true. Of course he is convinced by the arguments which show his contentions, but he knows that christianity from the testament of the Holy Spirit at the most primal level-a level which is independent of the arguments which show christianity to be true.

I wonder if Christians would accept the same kind of inconsistent arguments and bullshitting tactics from people of other religions.

Mick wrote:
Arguing that Christianity is true. You need to understand that there is a difference between the evidences showing that Christianity is true and the evidences for which he knows Christianity is true. Of course he is convinced by the arguments which show his contentions, but he knows that christianity from the testament of the Holy Spirit at the most primal level-a level which is independent of the arguments which show christianity to be true.

You need to understand the difference is immaterial as both are made-up & delusional bollocks.