Debating an Atheist

[mattrose]

You see, Steve Gregg says evolution isn't vital, but right there you talked about the fall as if it were a real event. If evolution were true, there was no fall. If evolution were true, you would not have that theology. This is how evolution can come into the discussion (one example of many). If evolution is true, there's no such thing as a "first human" so no such thing as a fall for the first human since there is no "first human."

Theistic evolutions don't have to stop believing in 'The Fall.' At some point along the divinely plan of evolution, there would have arisen a species we call human... quite capable of understanding commands and rebelling against their Maker. Theistic evolutionists may interpret the consequence of The Fall as 'spiritual' death, believing that 'physical' death had been part of the world for a long time. Your statement that if evolution is true there was no such thing as a 'first human' doesn't actually make sense. We have humans today, so at some point we'd have to pick a past generation that was the 'first' in this species.

You are the one who specifically said you didn't care about it, even after teaching on it. You wrote literally:
" But it is such an unimportant issue in Christianity that I literally don't care. I don't much care about the intermediate state."

You have to learn to read contextually. Obviously if someone reads about the subjects, studies it to the point of being able to teach about it, and then is willing to dialogue about it for days with a person that doesn't actually respond to content, then that person does 'care' about the subject. The quote above about not caring specifically applies to the OUTCOME of the debate. I care about the subject in the sense that I find it interesting to discuss (indeed, I would LOVE to discuss it, but when I actually gave you considerations, you didn't respond to them!), but it doesn't matter, practically, what the outcome is. Why? Because if my soul can't exist without my body, then I will not experience the time between my bodily death and my bodily resurrection. In a blink I will go from dead to alive. I'll be happy about that. If, on the other hand, my 'soul' does exist between my bodily death and resurrection, I'll be with the Lord somehow. I'll be happy. It won't make a difference either way. That's probably why the Bible doesn't care to make the intermediate state a major issue. It's simply not. Still fun to talk about, though.

[darinhouston]

You might want to consider whether the logical fallacy of "academic detachment" applies to you. From the web:

Huh?! I consider myself a student of debate and of logic and I've never heard of such a logical fallacy. I can see where this type of behavior is unwise and could cause one to ignore reality or affect one's own world view, but how does it relate to rational argument ? It sure sounds "highfalutin'" (like many of your statements) but certainly is not one of the logical fallacies in classical Aristotelean logic. Maybe it's a third cousin or something. But, lack of engagement in a rational argument or consideration is not the same thing as having an illogical approach to an argument.

[TrumanSmith]

You might want to consider whether the logical fallacy of "academic detachment" applies to you. From the web:

Huh?! I consider myself a student of debate and of logic and I've never heard of such a logical fallacy. I can see where this type of behavior is unwise and could cause one to ignore reality or affect one's own world view, but how does it relate to rational argument ? It sure sounds "highfalutin'" (like many of your statements) but certainly is not one of the logical fallacies in classical Aristotelean logic. Maybe it's a third cousin or something. But, lack of engagement in a rational argument or consideration is not the same thing as having an illogical approach to an argument.

It can be used as a logical fallacy when someone concludes that there is no definite position on a question because there is dispute about it. For example, someone saying "Astrology might actually be true. There are people on both sides, with Ph.D's, that argue about it. Therefore I take an open-minded position that it might or might not be true, since no one really knows."

I didn't say that he committed that logical fallacy. I said it is a possibility. I think he is avoiding the subject of 'soul' because, in the end, it doesn't make sense. That's why there are so many views on soul, as he explained. So that's why he takes no position and says he has no interest in it.

[TrumanSmith]

Theistic evolutionists may interpret the consequence of The Fall as 'spiritual' death, believing that 'physical' death had been part of the world for a long time. Your statement that if evolution is true there was no such thing as a 'first human' doesn't actually make sense.

Evolutionary creationists, like Prof. Denis Lamoureux, has been trying to get his fellow evangelical Christians to see that "There's no Adam just like there's no firmament." More info on that:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/wl_6_adam.htm

Excerpt:
Was Adam a Real Person?
Most Christians believe that Adam was a real person. The Bible certainly appears to indicate that he was present in the Garden of Eden with the Lord in Genesis 2 and 3. And the apostle Paul definitely affirms his existence in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15. But did Adam really live in the past? And if he never existed, does this have any impact on Christian Faith? The historicity of Adam is one of the most challenging issues in the origins debate for Christians, and this lecture introduces a new and provocative approach.

Prof. Lamoureux's book:
"Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution"
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Crea ... 1556355815

I've met and talked at length with Prof. Lamoureux and have his book.

[TrumanSmith]

Because if my soul can't exist without my body, then I will not experience the time between my bodily death and my bodily resurrection. In a blink I will go from dead to alive. I'll be happy about that. If, on the other hand, my 'soul' does exist between my bodily death and resurrection, I'll be with the Lord somehow.

What do you mean "if?" Do you think the Apostle Paul could be wrong when he said to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord? If you are absent from the body, that IS the time between death and resurrection. Why do you say "if" when the Apostle Paul speaks clearly about this?

[john6809]

Because if my soul can't exist without my body, then I will not experience the time between my bodily death and my bodily resurrection. In a blink I will go from dead to alive. I'll be happy about that. If, on the other hand, my 'soul' does exist between my bodily death and resurrection, I'll be with the Lord somehow.

What do you mean "if?" Do you think the Apostle Paul could be wrong when he said to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord? If you are absent from the body, that IS the time between death and resurrection. Why do you say "if" when the Apostle Paul speaks clearly about this?

I think you have abused Paul's statement long enough.

2 Cor. 5:6-7 says, So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. 7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

His first statement is easy enough - if we are physically alive, then we can't be present with the Lord. However, when Paul says in verse 7, we are pleased to be absent from the body and present with the Lord, he doesn't indicate whether or not there is a transitional period in between. It only indicates that the end result of the process of having left this earthly tent is a desirable place to be. If he had intended us to understand that the transition from one to the other was to be instantaneous (that is, if it was important for us to understand), he could have said "immediately present with the Lord."

[TrumanSmith]

2 Cor. 5:6-7 says, So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. 7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

It only indicates that the end result of the process of having left this earthly tent is a desirable place to be. If he had intended us to understand that the transition from one to the other was to be instantaneous (that is, if it was important for us to understand), he could have said "immediately present with the Lord."

Whether instantaneous or a few weeks later, either way, Paul says he is absent from the body and with the Lord. He says that is pleasant, so there's awareness. It is before the resurrection, because at the resurrection the (new) body is again with him (re-joined), according to the typical Catholic/Protestant theology.

[john6809]

Whether instantaneous or a few weeks later, either way, Paul says he is absent from the body and with the Lord. He says that is pleasant, so there's awareness. It is before the resurrection, because at the resurrection the (new) body is again with him (re-joined), according to the typical Catholic/Protestant theology.

What is pleasant? The "few weeks" (during which, it is possible that the soul may be completely unaware of it's situation) or the soul's implantation into a new, heavenly body and subsequent presence with the Lord? There is no implication in the text that the possible time frame between physical death and the point where the new body and the soul are joined is itself pleasant, if that is indeed what is to come. Anything else is reading into the text.

[Paidion]

What do you mean "if?" Do you think the Apostle Paul could be wrong when he said to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord?

Paul didn't say that! I think this is the most misquoted scripture in the entire Bible.

For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked.

Paul says that if our present body is destroyed, we have a "building from God", that is, a resurrection body which God Himself prepares for us.

For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.

Paul says, "not that we would be unclothed", that is "not that we would become disembodied spirits", but that we would be "clothed" with the resurrection body.

Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. (II Corinthians 5:1-8)

So Paul says that it it better to be absent from this present mortal body and to be present with the Lord in the resurrected body. He says nothing about having a spirit or soul that goes somewhere at death.

Indeed, Paul indicates that our whole hope is in the resurrection. This doesn't mean the survival of the "soul". Possession of a "soul" is a Greek philosophical idea which has been imported into Christendom. I don't "have a soul"; I AM a soul. The Hebrew word translated "soul" simply means a "being", and the Greek word translated "soul" means a "self".

Paul indicates that if there is no resurrection, we may as well eat, drink, and be merry. There's nothing beyond this life!

If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!" (I Corinthians 15:32)

In my opinion, Paul taught that our great hope is in the resurrection. If the dead do not rise again, they will stay dead, and have no hope, for there will be no after-life unless God raises people from the dead.

If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!" (I Corinthians 15:32)

[jriccitelli]

(I know this seems to be about the bible now, but about Dawkins pg.12 Aug 27)
In other words you have a “brain, lungs, motor nerves, voice box, coordinating muscles making sounds, breathing and swallowing, this is not an intelligent design this is historical legacy?” (2:24-50 Dawkins video)
Why did not Dawkins say of the ‘whole’ giraffe laying on the table and say “this is not an intelligent design this is historical legacy”(?) The fact that a giraffe, and or its nerves even ‘exist’ at all is design, not to mention the rest of the animals thousands of complex systems. The logic here defies logic.
You cannot ignore rational thought that says everything that reveals design and purpose must have been made with intelligence, then not use this logic when speaking of biological forms, ‘all’ of which reveal design far beyond man made things.

This is like finding a wire under the hood of a Toyota and saying ‘you see this wire here, we think it serves no purpose, therefore the whole car and all of creation has no designer". I don’t know how many times a week we come across wires that seem to have no purpose, then later we find that they do. Note the lady said this was only the ‘second time’ (!) they had ever dissected (1:05) this on a real giraffe corpse, and they are dismissing design on this? I have ‘never’ witnessed such a disconnect with logic.

Note the nerve is similar to the same nerve in a fish, they both have one, so what? Fish and all animals share thousands of designs, so do cars, toasters and ‘everything’ ever built by man, that doesn’t mean evolution any ‘more’ than design, how can that even be an argument ‘against’ design???

Sit down with a piece of paper and with your brain try and draw a wiring diagram for the nervous system, then produce a chemical process for it to grow into a working system all on it’s own from a sperm and an egg. The wires (nerves) need to grow out from the starting point, connect, all to the proper places on the heart, lugs, throat, eyes, tongue, spine, feet, etc. and then start sending signals to back to the brain and have the brain interpret them… but first make a drawing on paper, start with a mouse if you want, or an ant, no looking at a textbook remember you have a brain this shouldn’t be hard.