Ep. 78: Norton in da house

[Emery]

Catch up with Norton on this episode! We hope he can make it for more. One question that he and I still can't agree on: are humans more valuable under the Christian worldview or the atheist's?

[NH Baritone]

Norton's take on Christianity/theism seems not to rely on whether the theology describes reality.

Instead, the only thing that matters is whether he "feels" better by believing it.

This sounds like the husband who, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, feels better believing that his wife is faithful. Voltaire's Dr. Pangloss did the same thing when he used twisted reasoning to teach Candide that this is the best of all possible worlds. Norton, the husband, and Pangloss are each caught in intellectual knots that force them, no matter the data or the odds, to embrace only conclusions that comfort them and discount those that they find disturbing.

[crazylegsmurphy]

Simple... Atheist.

One life, one chance to exist.

[Atheist37]

Norton! Great to hear your voice again. I was fascinated by your adventures in parenthood. Congratulations, and here's wishing you a quick transition to a diaper-free home!

It was also good to hear that you have reconciled evolution as the origin of species with your Christian faith. As Emery made clear, the process of evolution is awe-inspiring and precious. That's true whether you're a Christian or an atheist. For the believers there is always a place for the miraculous, whether in the resurrection of Jesus or in the original spark of life on the primordial Earth.

One thing I can take away from this hour of friendly discussion. Christians are plastic models of the Grand Canyon. Score one for Emery!

[Lawrence]

I thought Emery's argument near the end (I guess you could call it appeal to uniqueness) was cogent. I think Norton just couldn't think of a response that's why he said it was weird. His large family analogy wasn't applicable because the argument was uniqueness not just production.

[mitchellmckain]

I thought Emery's argument near the end (I guess you could call it appeal to uniqueness) was cogent. I think Norton just couldn't think of a response that's why he said it was weird. His large family analogy wasn't applicable because the argument was uniqueness not just production.

The problem was that Emery was pulling a fast one by throwing in a premise that was not being examined carefully. Norton as a recent "convert" to evolution just wasn't prepared to see all the implications of evolution, for the most significant implication is that LIFE IS NOT CREATED BY DESIGN!!!! Once this is properly disposed of then Emery's premise that God can just start over and create a world EXACTLY like this one is also out the window. On the other hand, there is an important issue that was not discussed, namely the philosophical/theological issue of determinism/predestination. Now perhaps it was simply being assumed by both Emery and Norton that the world is deterministic (contradicting quantum physics) or predestined in absolute sense of the fundamentalists where God is in complete control of everything, and perhaps that is why the comparison didn't seem to work. But I would say to Norton that the comparison he is making with parenting is an implicit rejection of absolute predestination, for I don't think that a parent child relationship between God and His creation is really possible in that context. As I have said before in the forums, that would be more like the relationship you would have with a video tape or a novel you have written and not a relationship with something that is truly alive.

---------------

Anyway back to the beginning of the podcast I would very much object to Emery's attempt to make the acceptance of evolution imply a rejection of the resurrection. On the one hand, this sounds a great deal like a TYPICAL atheist attempt to equate science with his rejection of religion and the supernatural, for while there is a scientific theory of evolution there is NO scientific theory that resurrection is an impossibility. But again there is another issue here that was not really addressed and maybe it is assumption of agreement on that issue that let this slide by. I am talking about the question of spiritual bodily resurrection (as explained in 1 Cor 15) versus this non-Biblical fundamentalist idea of physical resurrection. There certainly are some details in this idea of physical resurrection that are going to be nonsense from the perspective of science -- particularly in regards to how the empty tomb can be taken to imply that resurrection requires ones orignal body.

Next to address Emery's question about a God evolved from some impersonal source. Well, I would say to Emery, why stop there why not simply suggest the possiblity that life on earth was created by intellegent aliens and suggest that this supplies all the personal meaning that one could want -- because well this really is not different from what Emery is suggesting. And the fact is that it DOESN'T give as much meaning to our existence, not by a long shot! And here we can just turn a typical atheists argument back on Emery at this point to say that this just pushes back the question a step and if you would be satisfied with the aliens then we why would we look past our own parents in the first place. It is because we are looking for ultimate meaning to be found in the ultimate beginnings.

Now if Emery doesn't see any more meaning in a creator, well I don't think that either Norton or I have any difficulty with that. And I certainly don't see any reason why we should have to provide some argument why God is a necessity for meaning because I frankly don't thing that either Norton or I are making any kind of argument for the existence of God from meaning. That really wasn't the point. The point was that UNLIKE EMERY, a great many people are NOT satisfied an answer to the question why found in impersonal forces. All this really means is that meaning and the answer to the question why is a rather subjective thing and I frankly think it is something we just have to find where ever we can, and we don't have to prove that our particular way is superior to anyone elses.

I will say that I don't particularly care for Norton's use of the words "purpose" or "mission" which I think can tend to imply that God created us as a means to an end and thus created us as tools rather than as children. Children are created to grow and learn and live their own life. Yes parents want a parent-child relationship with them but I think the essence of that relationship is one where children are an end in themselves. Thus I very much believe that as childen rather than tools our purpose is something that we have to choose, create and define for ourselves to some degree. I know that Christians often like to talk about God's plan for us, but I think it is wrong to think of this plan as being something like a blueprint, like if you do one thing wrong then it has to be thrown away. When you are dealing with living things, ones plans are of a different nature where rather than being in control you are just trying to bring out the best in them.

[Lawrence]

The problem was that Emery was pulling a fast one by throwing in a premise that was not being examined carefully. Norton as a recent "convert" to evolution just wasn't prepared to see all the implications of evolution, for the most significant implication is that LIFE IS NOT CREATED BY DESIGN!!!! Once this is properly disposed of then Emery's premise that God can just start over and create a world EXACTLY like this one is also out the window.

We don't know that necessarily, Norton did say that evolution was guided by God. If so, they God could create humans again. Maybe not a world exactly like ours but I think the point is having a second helping of homo sapiens -- and if God gives us our souls -- with the same personalities as well. Of course the latter part makes assumptions about one's belief in regards to souls. However I don't think that is needed for Emery's point either. However long (or short) it may take, God could recreate humans meaning they are not as unique as fully natural humans.

On the other hand, there is an important issue that was not discussed, namely the philosophical/theological issue of determinism/predestination. Now perhaps it was simply being assumed by both Emery and Norton that the world is deterministic (contradicting quantum physics) or predestined in absolute sense of the fundamentalists where God is in complete control of everything, and perhaps that is why the comparison didn't seem to work.

I'm very interested in this topic, maybe we can make a new thread about it in general discussion? Are you interested in a conversation about this? Does quantum physics provide contra-causal free will?

Anyway back to the beginning of the podcast I would very much object to Emery's attempt to make the acceptance of evolution imply a rejection of the resurrection. On the one hand, this sounds a great deal like a TYPICAL atheist attempt to equate science with his rejection of religion and the supernatural, for while there is a scientific theory of evolution there is NO scientific theory that resurrection is an impossibility.

There is no scientific theory that creationism is impossible but people accept evolution because it's the most likely theory supported by the evidence. Likewise there is no scientific theory that resurrection is impossible, but there is no evidence that it is possible (at least as described in the Bible) and it goes against all that we know about dead bodies. That is why I think a physical resurrection has no credence to it. If it was a spiritual resurrection only (as you believe) then this whole argument is pointless anyway. This is really only a debate when someone like Norton is debating.

[mitchellmckain]

I'm very interested in this topic, maybe we can make a new thread about it in general discussion? Are you interested in a conversation about this? Does quantum physics provide contra-causal free will?

This has already been a topic of discussion in several threads. What quantum physics does, is put an end to the idea of physical determinism. This leaves one with two options: either abandoning determinism altogether or looking for a closure of causality outside the accepted scientific world-view. There are a few ways that people try to do the latter. In my case, I do both. I abandon determinism all together AND I look for additional causality in a non-physical aspect of reality.

For me I guess that the greater emphasis is on the latter. I have heard the philosophy that there are no accidents enough to question the former to some degree, but I just don't have the personal experience to give this substance. In other words, I could be wrong, but it very much seems to me that the events of the world have a significant random component to them. On the other hand, I know that even in physics that random events can display an over all pattern that is not random at all, and thus I suspect that that there can also be events which are not as random as they might appear but are a result of non-physical causes.

We don't know that necessarily, Norton did say that evolution was guided by God.

Of course he did. So do I. We are Christians. We believe that our own lives are guided by God and we have no reason to believe that the same is not true of the lives of living creatures in the past. But guided is not the same as controlled. We have faith that God will eventually get us through our difficulties but that does not neccessarily mean that the process of doing so is deterministic and completely under His control.

If so, they God could create humans again. Maybe not a world exactly like ours but I think the point is having a second helping of homo sapiens -- and if God gives us our souls -- with the same personalities as well. Of course the latter part makes assumptions about one's belief in regards to souls. However I don't think that is needed for Emery's point either. However long (or short) it may take, God could recreate humans meaning they are not as unique as fully natural humans.

But now you are contradicting yourself. You said that the point was uniqueness and that is what makes the analogy with children work, and thus the suggestion is that if a parent does not like how a child is turning out then he should just kill the child and start over with another one.

There is no scientific theory that creationism is impossible but people accept evolution because it's the most likely theory supported by the evidence. Likewise there is no scientific theory that resurrection is impossible, but there is no evidence that it is possible (at least as described in the Bible) and it goes against all that we know about dead bodies. That is why I think a physical resurrection has no credence to it.

Emery and Norton simply did not discuss enough details to know what kind of resurrection they were talking about. If this was about the ridiculously naive understanding of physical resurrection that required the regathering of the same matter which bodies were composed of then I more than agree with Emery. That is just ludicrous. But I have a REALLY REALLY hard time believing that anyone rational enough to recognize the evidence supporting evolution would suppport such a ridiculous understanding of physical resurrection.

So the fact is that there is no real scientific evidence that a less naive physical resurrection is impossible. I admit that I personally do not believe it is possible. I don't believe in magic or star trek transporter beams that bring matter out of thin air to put all the atoms in the right place. I don't believe the result of a process of creation can be independent of the process by which something is created. But these are NOT scientic arguments let alone scientific evidence to show that such a things is impossible.

So frankly if we are not talking about some ridiculously naive version of physical resurrection then Emery's argument is wrong on so many levels that it is just absurd. The scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution and contradicts YEC. But there is no evidence to support a scientific theory that contradicts the resurrection of Jesus. At this point you are simply presenting a gaps argument. We don't know of any way of resurrecting a body that has been dead for a certain amount of time, but that just does not mean that it is impossible. The same sort of gaps argument is made against abiogenesis. But just because we don't know how this ocurred doesn't mean that it didn't.

If it was a spiritual resurrection only (as you believe) then this whole argument is pointless anyway. This is really only a debate when someone like Norton is debating.

But this was not discussed and I have never had such a conversation with Norton and since there have been changes in what Norton believes, I don't know that this is the case with anyone else here either. As far as I know, if Norton and I had a discussion about what I mean by a spritual resurrection which comes right out the Bible then he may find this entirely reasonable and even likely.

[Shans]

I thought Emery left a chance on the table to probe the implications of Norton’s newly adjusted Evolution beliefs. Once we’ve breached the denial of evolution (in its fullest form and not some ‘progressive creation over the eons’ style) it seems to me there are some serious ramifications to a Christian’s orthodoxy. On this point I think the YEC are correct.

Norton wrestled with evolution in spite of his science back ground because it implicated his orthodoxy. Once he was able to see how the first few chapters of Genesis could be rationalized without doing further damage he was clear to accept the science fully. This doesn’t seem like an honest way to do research but that’s another topic – it is the way almost all theologically minded folks I’ve known do science, with one eye on the orthodoxy. Okay, now evolution is completely true warts and all; speciation dead ends, extinction events destroying 90% of species at a time, junk DNA, bad design, etc. Where does that leave us with the church? I wanted Emery to press him on a couple of fronts.

 What about the Garden of Eden. True or just more poetry? Did death and sin originate only after humanity? There has been ‘death’ for at least 1 billion years IF he believes in evolution.

 What of the evolution of humanity? You can’t have all that wonderful science without also accepting the fact of human evolution.

 And of course the Flood portion was nonsense (poetry?) as are the stories of the Tower of Babel, Cane and Abel, Methuselah, etc. Not just because they are fantastic but because they run overtly contrary to anthropology and geological evidence. Where is he willing to draw a line and on what criteria? C.S. Lewis believed the Bible transitioned from Myth (e.g. Genesis), to Legend (e.g. Judges), to History (e.g. NT). Would Norton agree? Is he ready to change that much of his orthodoxy?

 If it was poetry and not history how many were in on the secret? Did the author of Genesis know he was writing poetry and not history put poetically? Did the later authors and editors of the OT understand it this way? Did Jesus? Did Paul? Both J and P seem to talk as if Adam and Eve were the real deal, historical progenitors of all humanity. Paul rests his case for the soteriological necessity of the resurrection on Adam’s originating sin. Was he incorrect about this, or did he know the truth but just wanted to use accommodating language? Obviously Jesus would be in the same situation. And considering all the subsequently church theology, persecution, and ignorance a literal historical interpretation of Genesis has caused over the 18 centuries before Darwin, not to mention the 100+ years of kicking and screaming to get even a portion of the church to accept the premise, you would have thought it would have been prudent of God to reveal to the church this truth that Norton now accepts right from the start. Why wait for godless scientists to teach us this important fact?

And now that Norton knows that science makes it necessary to bend theology (and never, never the other way around) surely he will look askance at all his theology….

[Pseudonym]

I thought Emery left a chance on the table to probe the implications of Norton’s newly adjusted Evolution beliefs. Once we’ve breached the denial of evolution (in its fullest form and not some ‘progressive creation over the eons’ style) it seems to me there are some serious ramifications to a Christian’s orthodoxy. On this point I think the YEC are correct.

Unfortunately, this interpretation has the weight of history against it. Pretty much every great pre-Enlightenment Christian theologian who has written on the topic of Genesis, from Augustine to Calvin, understood it to be at least partly non-literal, and certainly free of what we would now call scientific explanation.

YEC is a modern position, which arose in response to Darwin. Indeed, it's technically a younger position than Fundamentalism, in the sense that it arose after the Fundamentals were published and, indeed, the Fundamentals essentially don't mention evolution or the age of the Earth as being a key place to draw the line.

Okay, now evolution is completely true warts and all; speciation dead ends, extinction events destroying 90% of species at a time, junk DNA, bad design, etc.

(You will not that I have successfully resisted going off on a tangent, objecting to the term "junk DNA".)

I can't answer for Norton, but I can at least give by answers:

What about the Garden of Eden. True or just more poetry?

And of course the Flood portion was nonsense (poetry?) as are the stories of the Tower of Babel, Cane and Abel, Methuselah, etc.

Just like you, I believe it's mythology. Unlike you, I believe that mythology can be a good thing.

What of the evolution of humanity?

What of it?

Where is he willing to draw a line and on what criteria?

In my case, the same way we make any other judgment about ancient texts: do the research. Study the history of the text, the culture and literary conventions of the time, and so on.

If it was poetry and not history how many were in on the secret? Did the author of Genesis know he was writing poetry and not history put poetically?

There is no one "author of Genesis". Genesis comes from at least three sources that we know of, and underwent at least three subsequent revisions. But whoever composed Genesis 1 of course knew it was poetry, otherwise they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of putting in all of the parallelism, chiasmus and the obvious verse-with-refrains structure.

Did the later authors and editors of the OT understand it this way? Did Jesus? Did Paul?

They certainly used it that way, as a rich source of symbolism, typology and allegory. The example of Jesus as the second Adam is an excellent example.

Now, of course, the history of what people thought is extremely complex. But it's simply not true that everyone thought that Genesis was 100% allegorical before science came along, but it's also not true that most people thought it was 100% historical.

I think that part of the problem is that we Christians have this huge drive to explain things, often to our own later embarrassment as more stuff is discovered. I forget who it was who commented that Jews struggle with God, Muslims submit to God, and Christians try to explain God.

But in the end, evolution does not pose any new problem for Christian orthodoxy that wasn't already dealt with 1600 years ago.

[Lawrence]

But now you are contradicting yourself. You said that the point was uniqueness and that is what makes the analogy with children work, and thus the suggestion is that if a parent does like how a child is turning out then he should just kill the child and start over with another one.

That's nearly what God did during the flood. Regardless, the point isn't a moral argument so I don't think not approving of the misconduct of the child is important at all. Just the fact that life, especially humans is infinitely replaceable in a God universe assuming God would want to do that for whatever reason (asteroid impact, disease, whatever). In a natural universe, without God, humans are precious, unique, and finite. That is all Emery was trying to say in my opinion.

But there is no evidence to support a scientific theory that contradicts the resurrection of Jesus. At this point you are simply presenting a gaps argument. We don't know of any way of resurrecting a body that has been dead for a certain amount of time, but that just does not mean that it is impossible. The same sort of gaps argument is made against abiogenesis. But just because we don't know how this ocurred doesn't mean that it didn't.

Did I say it was impossible? I said there is no credence to it. Just because a book states it as fact (arguably) that doesn't mean it has some inherent believability. If the same thing was said about Caesar I would reply the same way, there is no reason to think the account is credible. There is however reason to think it's incredible since it is far more likely it's false than everything we know about dead bodies to be false,even if that knowledge is incomplete. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.It's not impossible though. This is justified through induction I think.

[mitchellmckain]

Just the fact that life, especially humans is infinitely replaceable in a God universe assuming God would want to do that for whatever reason (asteroid impact, disease, whatever). In a natural universe, without God, humans are precious, unique, and finite. That is all Emery was trying to say in my opinion.

But children are clearly not replaceble because they are NOT a means to an end but an end in themselves. Genesis makes it quite clear that the same is true of human beings. God did not create man as a means to something else but rather God created everything else as means to bring man into being. This is made clear both by the fact that God's work of creation finishes with man and that man is said to be in His own image (which is exactly what you do when you create children). But when a parent sees his children destroying themselves then it is likely that he will restort to extreme measures to save what children he can.

There is however reason to think it's incredible since it is far more likely it's false than everything we know about dead bodies to be false,even if that knowledge is incomplete. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.It's not impossible though. This is justified through induction I think.

I agree that a physical resurrection is unlikely and thus I consider it far more likely that it was a spiritual resurrection in accordance with the the explanation in the Bible (1 Corinthians 15). But your demands for evidence are pointless. I don't require you to believe this claim or anything else. You may believe as you choose. But the fact is that people will believe what they experience for themselves and whether they have any objective evidence to prove it to YOU or Emery is really rather irrelevant. It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with Norton's acceptance of the evidence for the theory of evolution, for this does not change the fact that there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence for the premise of metaphysical naturalism and there NEVER will be.

[Lawrence]

But children are clearly not replaceble because they are NOT a means to an end but an end in themselves. Genesis makes it quite clear that the same is true of human beings. God did not create man as a means to something else but rather God created everything else as means to bring man into being. This is made clear both by the fact that God's work of creation finishes with man and that man is said to be in His own image (which is exactly what you do when you create children). But when a parent sees his children destroying themselves then it is likely that he will restort to extreme measures to save what children he can.

The wording children or humans and the fact that your version of God would not do this is irrelevant to my point. I saying God can recreate humans if God wished to with whatever natural wrangling you need to not have cognitive dissonance with your scientific understanding. God is all powerful whether or not he is also moral.

It's like if there was only one flower in the whole history of the world. Its beauty would be unique and spectacular not only for all of humanity but a something to be proud of and share with the future so they may enjoy it as well and saddening to know that dead will never expereince it. In the real world that isn't the case, there are billions of flowers. They have existed for the entirety of humanities existence and we can be fairly sure posterity will experience them as well. We may grow attached to certain flowers and care for them lovingly but even the death of an entire garden is no great loss. They can always be replaced ad infinitum. They may not be the same flowers but they will be flowers and special in a different way. It is not the same level of loss.

But your demands for evidence are pointless.

What demands? Did I ask you to justify yourself? I only wish for evidence for myself, else there is no reason for me to believe it. "I don't require you to believe this claim or anything else. You may believe as you choose."

But the fact is that people will believe what they experience for themselves and whether they have any objective evidence to prove it to YOU or Emery is really rather irrelevant.

I agree. You were leading me towards a scientific approach to this however mentioning gap arguments and scientific theory. Now you claim it's unimportant even though you brought it up. What I was arguing was:

while there is a scientific theory of evolution there is NO scientific theory that resurrection is an impossibility.

Does not mean science has nothing to say on the likelihood of the resurrection. First you claimed I was stating some absolute certainty about the resurrection somehow being disproven by science ("but that just does not mean that it is impossible."). That is after I specifically said:

there is no scientific theory that resurrection is impossible

Now you claim I'm making demands and trying to comepletely back out of the science question into some non-propositional claim.

I also don't understand how you can expereince Jesus' resurrection for yourself. What does that mean?

It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with Norton's acceptance of the evidence for the theory of evolution, for this does not change the fact that there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence for the premise of metaphysical naturalism and there NEVER will be.

You're saying there are supernatural things that fall outside sciences' claws but all I read are these experiential claims which are purely subjective and can NEVER be shown to me to be accurate. What exactly am I missing holding onto this naturalism until there is experiential evidence (which I don't think might be due to emotion, manipulation or delusion) that would way me otherwise?

[mitchellmckain]

I saying God can recreate humans if God wished to with whatever natural wrangling you need to not have cognitive dissonance with your scientific understanding.

Yes, your point is that parents can have more children and our point is that this is irrelevant.

with whatever natural wrangling you need to not have cognitive dissonance with your scientific understanding. God is all powerful whether or not he is also moral.

All powerful does not include what is logically inconsistent -- it does not mean that God can do whatever you say by whatever means you care to dictate.

It's like if there was only one flower in the whole history of the world. Its beauty would be unique and spectacular not only for all of humanity but a something to be proud of and share with the future so they may enjoy it as well and saddening to know that dead will never expereince it. In the real world that isn't the case, there are billions of flowers. They have existed for the entirety of humanities existence and we can be fairly sure posterity will experience them as well. We may grow attached to certain flowers and care for them lovingly but even the death of an entire garden is no great loss. They can always be replaced ad infinitum. They may not be the same flowers but they will be flowers and special in a different way. It is not the same level of loss.

Right. ? I agree? that the comparison of individual flowers to individual human beings is a poor one. ?

I only wish for evidence for myself, else there is no reason for me to believe it.

I understand that you have no reason to believe it, and I see clear signs that it is probably better that you don't believe it. But tell me, what sort of evidence do you wish for and what difference would it make to you?

But the fact is that people will believe what they experience for themselves and whether they have any objective evidence to prove it to YOU or Emery is really rather irrelevant.

I agree. You were leading me towards a scientific approach to this however mentioning gap arguments and scientific theory. Now you claim it's unimportant even though you brought it up. What I was arguing was:

Nonsense. It is important to understand the difference between what is science and what is not. We were discussing Emery's argument and it validity. Science provides abundant evidence for the theory of evolution, therefore it is rational to take this seriously as Norton does. It does not follow that one should therefore only believe what science provides evidence for. Emery's argument is not valid -- at least not in so far as anything that was actually discussed.

I also don't understand how you can expereince Jesus' resurrection for yourself. What does that mean?

I did not say anything like that. Do scientist experience the evolution of the dinosaurs? Not exactly. They see it in the fossil evidence -- so in that sense they experience it. It is a matter of what is consistent with what they do experience. Christians experience the risen Christ in a personal relationship and thus in that sense they see the resurrection of Christ through their personal experiences with Him.

What exactly am I missing holding onto this naturalism until there is experiential evidence (which I don't think might be due to emotion, manipulation or delusion) that would way me otherwise?

Huh? I would never adopt an understanding of reality that was insconsistent with my experiences of it -- that doesn't make sense to me. What would be the point? Looking for a reason to do that, sounds like an attempt at willful self-delusion. I have no inclination to help you do anything of that sort.

I do think there is an advantage in believing as I do that there is an irreducibly subjective aspect to reality. I do not feel complelled to think that people are defective or inferior just because the do not believe or think as I do. I see a great advantage in the diversity of human thought and as a result I feel there is a substantial pragmatic reason for believing in a subjective aspect to reality.

[Lawrence]

All powerful does not include what is logically inconsistent -- it does not mean that God can do whatever you say by whatever means you care to dictate.

It doesn't mean God can't do what you say he can't do. I don't think you know God that well.

Right. ? I agree? that the comparison of individual flowers to individual human beings is a poor one. ?

I think it's not a poor comparison. The loss of a single flower is not as significant as the loss of the only flower.

I see clear signs that it is probably better that you don't believe it.

Oh?

But tell me, what sort of evidence do you wish for and what difference would it make to you?

Perhaps a single case of resurrection would be a good starting point. Otherwise God is smart enough to know what would convince me if God wished me to be convinced. Apparently some people deserve to have revelation and some have to struggle to find faith. What difference would it make? I'd believe in Jesus' resurrection, that's about it.

Nonsense. It is important to understand the difference between what is science and what is not. We were discussing Emery's argument and it validity. Science provides abundant evidence for the theory of evolution, therefore it is rational to take this seriously as Norton does. It does not follow that one should therefore only believe what science provides evidence for. Emery's argument is not valid -- at least not in so far as anything that was actually discussed.

That's nice but you really didn't finish our discussion about how much evidence is enough to disbelieve.

I did not say anything like that. Do scientist experience the evolution of the dinosaurs? Not exactly. They see it in the fossil evidence -- so in that sense they experience it. It is a matter of what is consistent with what they do experience. Christians experience the risen Christ in a personal relationship and thus in that sense they see the resurrection of Christ through their personal experiences with Him.

ok