How would your account be different?

[Inigo Montoya]

I've been tossing around the question as to why it is we believe written accounts of officers or soldiers in past wars, or why we believe the stories of famous men and women throughout history prior to the advent of cameras and film.


For the sake of argument, I'd ask you -- IF you were witness to the life and death of Jesus in the first century, and we assume the miracles and resurrection are true, how do YOU record your accounting of it in such a way it is believed in future generations?

Is this possible? Do we believe the events of the War of 1812 took place the way they did because there's no mention of supernatural occurrences?

If we assume for discussion the events in the gospels actually occurred, how would you have captured them in such a way as to stand up to future scrutiny?

[PhiloKGB]

Our school system is based on no child left behind. Instead of trying to raise all students to the highest level of excellence we can, we lower the standard to where the largest majority of students will pass. We don't do our children any favors by doing this. If a teacher does try to make kids think critically or challenges them and they fail to pass the challenge the teacher is held at fault. Mediocrity is what our school system accepts these days. Our public school system is not a shining example of how to teach right now.

I am in broad agreement. My point, however, was not in defense of NCLB; I was trying to point out that even the most stringent pedagogies recognize different learning styles and speeds.

[charles_hamm]

Our school system is based on no child left behind. Instead of trying to raise all students to the highest level of excellence we can, we lower the standard to where the largest majority of students will pass. We don't do our children any favors by doing this. If a teacher does try to make kids think critically or challenges them and they fail to pass the challenge the teacher is held at fault. Mediocrity is what our school system accepts these days. Our public school system is not a shining example of how to teach right now.

I am in broad agreement. My point, however, was not in defense of NCLB; I was trying to point out that even the most stringent pedagogies recognize different learning styles and speeds.

They also provide the same material to every student. They only offer help if asked for. As for speed I don't think anyone says God requires you to learn anything fast.

[PhiloKGB]

They also provide the same material to every student.

Not so. Special education students get modified lessons and exams.

They only offer help if asked for.

Wrong again. Some special education students are pulled out of their regular classrooms on schedules.

As for speed I don't think anyone says God requires you to learn anything fast.

I wasn't making a direct analogy.

In any case, this is all irrelevant. Schools provide broadly similar materials to all students because of constraints: limited number of teachers, limited budgets. God is, by definition, not so constrained.

[charles_hamm]

They also provide the same material to every student.

Not so. Special education students get modified lessons and exams.

Are you saying we are all special education students

They only offer help if asked for.

Wrong again. Some special education students are pulled out of their regular classrooms on schedules.

Understood. They are tested and found to need that. The help is asked for by either a teacher or a counselor when they see there is a problem with the students ability to learn.

As for speed I don't think anyone says God requires you to learn anything fast.

I wasn't making a direct analogy.

In any case, this is all irrelevant. Schools provide broadly similar materials to all students because of constraints: limited number of teachers, limited budgets. God is, by definition, not so constrained.

No He is not constrained. We, however, don't always want the help He offers. We don't always accept His answer to our prayers, we sometimes tell him no, we often blame him for the bad but don't praise him for the good and even when He places things we need right in front of us, we don't always accept them because they are not what we want. So in a sense we are constrained by own wants, desires and stubbornness.

[PhiloKGB]

Are you saying we are all special education students

Heh. No. Just fleshing out my point that not everyone is capable of using the same information to reach the same conclusions.

No He is not constrained. We, however, don't always want the help He offers. We don't always accept His answer to our prayers, we sometimes tell him no, we often blame him for the bad but don't praise him for the good and even when He places things we need right in front of us, we don't always accept them because they are not what we want. So in a sense we are constrained by own wants, desires and stubbornness.

You don't seem to appreciate what it means to be a perfect communicator. Unless there are people for whom it is somehow *literally* impossible to get God's message, none of this can possibly be a problem for him.

[dbohm]

I will say this much and that is if the evidence for God were the same as a dictionary definition or that 2 x 2=4, then God would be like a dictionary or like a multiplication table. We could put God then on a bookshelf or on the wall and forget about it. In fact what we would have would be an idol not God. Bonhoeffer once wrote that "A God who who let us prove his existence, would be an idol".

That's interesting. What do many of the "intelligent, inquisitive and investigative minds" -- who throw about proofs of God like so much confetti -- have to say about Bonhoeffer's convenient excuse? Did Cornelius van Til or BB Warfield -- contemporaries of Bonhoeffer -- agree with him?

That's an interesting pont you make. I am unconvinced by proofs for God. I think it can be close to proven that there is an Aristotelian prime mover. But even then I don't believe it's totally bulletproof and a long distance from the Christian God.

I'm not really well read on presuppositional apologetics that I believe Van Til and Warfield are part of. Theopoesis probably would know a lot about this. However I'm not sure if what they were doing was really providing positive proofs for God. Instead they seem to take a very reasonable approach by analysing the Christian and Non-Christian presuppositions and ultimate principles and seeing what their ultimate outcomes are. We can then assess which reduces to absurdity and which one is closest to what we know of reality. But again I've not read these authors only about them.

But not having a proof for God, just as not having a proof for Atheism does not thereby make it an irrational belief. There are still reasons for belief, as there are reasons for unbelief. But I differ from some Christian apologists and definitely most agnostic/atheist advocates in that I accept a larger epistemology than a 'test tube' or syllogistic epistemology. There is a sense I can and do 'know' God, but it's not the same as I know my timetables or that canis=dog in Latin.

[McCulloch]

But not having a proof for God, just as not having a proof for Atheism does not thereby make it an irrational belief. There are still reasons for belief, as there are reasons for unbelief. But I differ from some Christian apologists and definitely most agnostic/atheist advocates in that I accept a larger epistemology than a 'test tube' or syllogistic epistemology. There is a sense I can and do 'know' God, but it's not the same as I know my timetables or that canis=dog in Latin.

How is what you believe about God properly called knowledge? How is it distinguished from wishful thinking and speculation?

[dbohm]

But not having a proof for God, just as not having a proof for Atheism does not thereby make it an irrational belief. There are still reasons for belief, as there are reasons for unbelief. But I differ from some Christian apologists and definitely most agnostic/atheist advocates in that I accept a larger epistemology than a 'test tube' or syllogistic epistemology. There is a sense I can and do 'know' God, but it's not the same as I know my timetables or that canis=dog in Latin.

How is what you believe about God properly called knowledge? How is it distinguished from wishful thinking and speculation?

Well I know a sunset is beautiful even though I can't explain why. I know what makes my wife happy or unhappy for that matter though it would be very difficult to explain it to someone else. I know we're more in love now than when we first met 10 years ago. That's also difficult to explain with words.

I've seen my character change since becoming a Christian. Habits I could never shake just falling off. Answered and sometimes unanswered prayer. Recognizing God's voice. Being in His presence during prayer and meditation.

This is not exactly knowledge I can easily share or communicate. It's lost in telling. It's also intimate and intensely private. But still knowledge.

[McCulloch]

How is what you believe about God properly called knowledge? How is it distinguished from wishful thinking and speculation?

Well I know a sunset is beautiful even though I can't explain why.

Yes, but you can take a picture of it. We can examine various aspects of a sunset. We know that they do happen. We still are at a loss as to why a significant number of humans find them beautiful, but even that we can survey and have some knowledge about the impact of sunsets on human experience. We cannot objectively show anything about God. The problem is not so much that there are a few things about God which are hard to put into words, the problem is that there is nothing about God that can be accurately described as knowledge.

I know what makes my wife happy or unhappy for that matter though it would be very difficult to explain it to someone else. I know we're more in love now than when we first met 10 years ago. That's also difficult to explain with words.

Again, we can demonstrate the existence and certain aspects of your wife's character quite objectively. Yes, of course, there are some things about her, which you have learned that are difficult to describe, but there are other things which you can and most likely do put down on paper, as factual knowledge. What is there about God that can be truly called factual knowledge? Anything?

I've seen my character change since becoming a Christian. Habits I could never shake just falling off.

If anything, this is only evidence to the efficacy of the Christian method, not to the truth in the theology behind it. A person goes to an acupuncturist and gets good results. That does not mean that there are five different types of Qi steadily flowing from the inside of the body to the skin, muscles, tendons, bones, and joints, channeled through twenty meridians.

Answered and sometimes unanswered prayer.

That is a good one. There is no distinction between a God that answers some prayers and not others and a God that does not even hear your prayers at all.

Recognizing God's voice.

How is that done? Could it be that you are hearing your own inner voice and attributing that to God? Susan B. Anthony said, "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

Being in His presence during prayer and meditation.

Actually, there is no way to know that you are or are not in His presence. All you can say is that you feel as if you are in God's presence, something I would not dispute.

This is not exactly knowledge I can easily share or communicate. It's lost in telling. It's also intimate and intensely private. But still knowledge.

No, it is not knowledge in any meaningful sense of the word knowledge.

[charles_hamm]

Are you saying we are all special education students

Heh. No. Just fleshing out my point that not everyone is capable of using the same information to reach the same conclusions.

Fair enough point. I still don't see how that would make God to blame. If some can't reach the same conclusions as others that means there are some who can. Can't the ones who are unable to reach that conclusion consult with the ones who can to see how they got it?

No He is not constrained. We, however, don't always want the help He offers. We don't always accept His answer to our prayers, we sometimes tell him no, we often blame him for the bad but don't praise him for the good and even when He places things we need right in front of us, we don't always accept them because they are not what we want. So in a sense we are constrained by own wants, desires and stubbornness.

You don't seem to appreciate what it means to be a perfect communicator. Unless there are people for whom it is somehow *literally* impossible to get God's message, none of this can possibly be a problem for him.

Actually it's not a problem for Him. It's a problem we have accepting His message, in my opinion.