Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago

    Enjoyed the convo! Looking forward to more in the future.

    • a year ago

      @swordwords Yep, that was very nice. I feel like we should have discussed logical seeking, I didn't think about it but it's a big one for some.

    • a year ago

      @sigfried How would you define logical seeking?

    • a year ago

      @swordwords A good number of Christian apologists I've encountered insist that the only valid way to be a believer is through reason and logic. They tend to be very fond of William Lane Craig and Lewis Carol's works.

      They are fond of logical proofs for god such as the Cosmological argument and the like. So they tend to reject personal revelation as a way to know the truth and they presume that if it is truth you can and must know it through sound reason.

      This gent is an example, he used to specialize (stilll might) in trying to find the best ways to convince atheists to become believers. I debated him once, quite a while ago on his radio show and have kept in touch via facebook for a while since then. He recently converted to Catholicism which I found interesting. But he was a strong proponent of the finding god through reason paradigm.


    • a year ago

      @sigfried Gotcha. Yeah, I'm a big fan of WLC and his arguments. I think logic-based arguments and reasoning in general definitely have a part to play in the pursuit of knowledge.

      As I was thinking more about it last night, I think you make a good point that personal revelation, when standing alone, can still leave someone vulnerable to deception. This is probably due to people misinterpreting their what they've experienced. In any case, a more integrated approach including personal experience, logic/reasoning, historical research, critical self-analysis, etc.. would have more checks and balances against someone being deceived.