Wednesday, November 2, 2016

What if I reject some parts of your argument?

Here's the argument.
  1. If it is granted, that God exists,
  2. And it is granted that God is perfectly truthful,
  3. And it is granted that God cares that people should believe the truth about Him, 
  4. Then God has the motive and opportunity to prove the truth.
  5. THEN, if it is granted that only God has the power to raise people from the dead,
  6. THEN, considering that Jesus claimed to be God, 
  7. AND, considering that Jesus claimed to be able to raise Himself from the dead, 
  8. IF Jesus was raised from the dead,
  9. THEN this would be a supernatural proof of the claim of His deity.
  10. OTHERWISE, His resurrection would amount to God endorsing a false claim. 
  11. God being truthful and caring that people know the truth, would have no motive to do so.
  12. Granting that the resurrection occurred, 
  13. Jesus is then God, and perfectly knowledgeable and perfectly truthful.
  14. Granting that Jesus claimed that the entire Bible is 100% true, 
  15. THEN we can conclude that the Bible is 100% true.
And here's a treatment of why it's futile to argue against this argument:
  1. Deny that God exists -- irrelevant to the proof, because it begins as a hypothetical. It is in fact through the Resurrection that we prove God's existence. Because upon proving the Word, we find that the Word proves God's existence. Therefore, you cannot escape the conclusion by denying this point.
  2. Deny that God is truthful - to what end? Nobody genuinely believes, as shown by how they live their life, as if the universe is governed by an all powerful deceitful being. People may deny that there exists a truthful God, but they do not suppose that if a God exists, that He would be untruthful in His nature. Every single argument against the Bible based on the allegation of a contradiction is proof that everyone accepts the definition of God as a perfectly truthful being. There is no use attacking this point.
  3. Deny that God cares what people believe - congratulations, you've espoused deism and/or universalism, which are just inconsistent versions of fatalism. Nothing matters. But if you really do think that God doesn't care what you believe, why do you assume that whatever the truth is, it can't be Christianity? You're not exactly ambivalent if you're biased. And each of these two attacks against the premise suffer from a fatal unwarranted assumption. In addition to the fact that it's a rejection of the very definition of God as properly understood by almost everyone, both are actually confident assertions without any basis. On what authority is the claim that God is not truthful, or not concerned with what people believe, based? There is no known monotheistic religion that makes this claim in a holy scripture, so the assumption can only be based on human authority, which is self-refuting, because why would that which is created know the nature of an unrevealed deity better than the deity itself?
  4. Point 4 cannot be argued because it follows logically from 2 and 3.
  5. Denying that God can raise the dead is to deny that God is all powerful. It is thus to deny the basic definition of what God's nature is, without any basis, and thus is the same begging-the-question fallacy previously rebuffed.
  6. Did Jesus claim to be God? Yes. It is not necessary to previously affirm the spiritual authority of the Bible as God's Word at this point, to recognize that it is a historical document like any other, and thus by applying the same principles of study as we do to other documents, we can be confident that it was indeed written at the time it was written and that it is accurately historical. This can be known beyond a reasonable doubt by the historical analysis, enough to take this point seriously. Upon the conclusion of the argument, we can now know this irrefutably because the Word attests to this fact with God's own authority. And as to whether the Bible actually records Jesus claiming to be God, that can easily be addressed in a separate place for serious inquirers, but for now I direct you to GotQuestions.
  7. Did Jesus claim to be able to rise from the dead?
    "...lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18 No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” John 10:17-18
    "
    19 Jesus answered them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken." John 2:19-22
  8. This is the focal point of Part II of the proof. Introduced here as a hypothetical, this is not something that can be argued against. 
  9. This logically follows from points 4, and 5-7 (which are really one major concept), and 8. This cannot be refuted without resulting in the reductio ad absurdum in point 10.
  10. If you deny this, you're claiming that a God would intentionally raise to life a man who claimed to be God and have the power to resurrect Himself, which to any rational person would appear to be a validation of the person's claims, when in fact it is not, thus actively deceiving people into believing what's false. This violates the basic point noted in 2 and 3, by denying God's nature by supposing that He is both deceitful and doesn't care about whether people know the truth. In other words, you are denying the agreed-upon definition of God. Anyone who fights this point is incorrigibly refusing to follow the logic to the conclusion. You would be making the same argument that muslims make, that Jesus wasn't actually crucified but someone else was in his place. Their religion boils down to saying that their biggest competitor in terms of the number of professing adherents is not only due to a misunderstanding, but a direct act of God, which is deeply embarrassing. 
  11. Summary of previous points. Nothing that can be argued here.
  12. Restatement of point 8, and demonstrated in Part II of the proof.
  13. Logical conclusion of all prior points.
  14. Did Jesus claim the Bible was God's Word? There's this, To argue against it, you would have to assume that the Bible accurately records what Jesus actually said, and then you've denied yourself the privilege to pick on points 5, 6, and 7. 
  15. Logical conclusion of all prior points.
-W

No comments:

Post a Comment