Thursday, March 17, 2011

Evidence for Christianity by J.P. Moreland

Dr. J.P. Moreland delivers this talk on The Evidence for Christianity. He builds a case for God's existence using three evidences, and argues for Christianity based on two evidences. You can also watch the video of this talk here. More resources by Moreland here. Books here. A short and clear lecture that you can share with others.

Full MP3 Audio here. (34 min)

Enjoy.

21 comments :

joe said...

j.p approach and arguments are distinctive ..
always blessed when tune him
thanks for the post

Tom Rafferty said...

All of these arguments have been effectively debunked by the skeptical community. See my blog, ratioprimoris.blogspot.com for details, if you have an open mind.

bossmanham said...

Bwa ha ha. False, skeptic troll.

Beyond that, Moreland and Craig are [insert preferred cliched partnership here].

Russell said...

Hi Tom,

I listen to many debates between Christians and Skeptics and have found that most of the arguments J.P. provided are not in any way debunked. I think it's important to note that he only had around 30 minutes to give this presentation and it seemed like he was only providing a quick outline. There are many other lectures from Moreland that go into more detail concerning his arguments.

Also, from what I've noticed in the blogging community, people will be more likely to visit your blog if you are willing to interact with others over topics such as the one posted here. A Generic statement followed by a link to your blog is not going to attract much attention.

Jo said...

Tom,
I guess we all have to stick to what and where the argument leads... usually what i found is skeptic like you always have a problem of presupposition.
other problem with skeptics is they always call others to be open minded where as they are close minded... sorry Tom, but this is embarrassing.

Tom Rafferty said...

Jo,

Thanks for the comment.

Yes, I certainly DO have a problem with presupposition. To presuppose the validity of the Bible over and above evidence is ludicrous.

I am open-minded. Take a few minutes to read the introduction to my blog to see my worldview background before labeling me closed-minded.

Have a good day

Nick Potts said...

Tom,

I would like to quote G.K. Chesterton to you on being "open-minded."

"Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

Tom Rafferty said...

Nick,

What does your post have to do with anything I have said?

pds said...

Tom, You can't make some grand sweeping, unsupported statements, post a link to you blog and expect us to respond positively. If you want us to read your blog, then present some thoughtful refutations to Moreland's arguments. Most Christians round here are open to honest dialogue, and many Christians have diverse opinions about the validity of certain theistic arguments. What do you think is Moreland's best argument?

Paul

Tom Rafferty said...

Paul,

I have played the apologist game long enough. There simply is not enough evidence to support a god or Christianity and I don't feel like breaking it down for you. Do some unbiased reading, on my blog or from other sources. If you believe differently, good luck with that. If you think you have EVIDENCE against anything I have posted on my blog, bring it on.

The reason for my initial post was to just "stir the puddin' up" and challenge anyone who wants to take the time (and it will take time to change a theist's opinion, I know --- it took me decades) to look at religion with an open mind using the only tool (science) that can give us knowledge and can be verified by others (i.e. peer review). Personal experience can be and has been looked at scientifically and it strongly suggests that religion is a delusion. Is it prove? No. Does it show what is most likely (as all scientific assessments do)? YES.

Have a good day.

Brian Auten said...

Just when there was about to be some substance to the discussion and it comes to an end. I was looking for some arguments. Moreland gave good ones, but those were not refuted here. And no arguments for atheism were given. Ah well.

pds said...

Tom,

You posted here, making grand assertions with no argument to back them up. Why don't you summarise one of your rebuttals to one of Morelands arguments here and we can have a rational dialogue.


Science is a wonderful tool, but its not the only means of knowledge. Philosophers of all types have long recognised this. Your argument against Personal experience makes little sense but I can guess what your trying to say.

Is it like this?

1. Science can replicate the Brain states that people have during religious experiences.
2. If Science can replicate the Brain states of experiences these experiences are not genuine.

Conclusion: Religious experiences are not genuine

If this is your argument then it has a 2nd premise that is clearly wrong. We can replicate many experiences in a lab that are genuine. I have a particular brain state when I see a tree, I'm sure Science can replicate that too. No big deal! Perhaps you would like to clarify your argument.

Tom Rafferty said...

Folks,

You mistake me for someone who wants to have a discussion. I have been clear that I have been there and have done that.

Not your usual comment, right? I am not your usual troll.

I am presenting a challenge to you all. You can either wallow in your ignorance or challenge yourselves to look a little deeper into what the skeptic community has to say.

Peace.

Russell said...

Tom,

I have checked out your blog. I have even posted a few times there. If the various straw man scenarios you have presented are what the skeptical community has to say then I am not at all worried about my convictions.

I have to agree with one thing you've said. Your comment is unusual. Most of the people who post here enjoy fruitful discussions that challenge their various worldviews. You have basically come here campaigning for your blog without offering any selling point. Many of the arguments Moreland makes are scientific. Yet you haven't responded to one them. Instead you make the ridiculous claim that ALL apologetic arguments have been debunked and then invite us to find the "truth" on your blog. I have checked out your blog, and as I've stated, I have not found anything convincing.

If you are not willing to offer us anything substantial on this blog, then why in the world would anyone feel compelled to do the same on yours?

Tom Rafferty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Rafferty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Rafferty said...

Russell,

There is no one who is so blind than he who will not see. Have a good day.

Russell said...

Tom,

Random proverbs prove nothing. I could just at easily repeat the same thing to you.

Simply saying that you are rational and Christians are ignorant does not prove anything. I would think someone who is so concerned with evidence would see the problem we are having here.

pds said...

Tom,

I've looked at some of your posts and they are poor. You appear to hold to the Scientific positivism that was popular among Philosophers back in the 50s. Your engagement with theistic arguments consist of silly misunderstandings because you learn from people just as ignorant as yourself. Your arrogant self promotion reminds me of John Loftus, who is probably one of your favourite bloggers no doubt.

Have a good day,

Paul

Tom Rafferty said...

Folks,

I will leave this thread with one statement. If any of you have any EVIDENCE against anything I have posted on my blog, please present it on my blog. I will not be posting on this thread, or any other thread on this blog.

I wish you all well.

Peace.

Anonymous said...

Given your behaviour on this thread, Tom, I'm not sure that signing off with "peace" is appropriate.

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.

Blog Archive

Amz