This Is How to Make a Case for the Bible with an Agnostic
Greg Koukl describes two kinds of atheists and gives suggestions on what Columbo questions to ask them, then he explains how to make a case to an agnostic that the Bible is accurate.
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity #Worldviews #TheBible
————— CALL IN TO THE SHOW —————
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl, live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time, at (855) 243-9975.
————— SUBMIT YOUR QUESTION —————
If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time for the broadcast, or if you’d like to submit a question for the #STRask podcast, fill out our form at https://www.str.org/training/broadcast.
————— FIND MORE FREE TRAINING —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
————— CONNECT —————
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://www.str.org/donate
source
look how silly mr Koukl's textual argument is; in the gospel jesus claims to be god; if jesus were resurrected, would that be proof that he is god? oh look! at the end of the gospel it says jesus was resurrected; all that mr Koukl has demonstrated is the story
mr Koukl is setting you up to look like a fool because he is arguing a strawman position; [i have never heard anyone say a god is impossible] i think he does so because he desperately avoids burden; an atheist will simply say, "i lack belief in god, because the evidence for its existence is weak"; an agnostic acknowledges that, because theists argue that got exists beyond space time, how could one know of its existence one way or the other? either way, it is the burden of the theist to present evidence; mr koukl is a master at the strawman setup
Fact is, there's nothing else given among men that comes remotely close to what Christianity and the Scriptures holds out to us as a coherent, consistent, and compelling life-affirming theology and epistemology that changes our lives. All other ground is sinking sand- and I've tried to stand on those places and experienced it. If a person is tired of the sinking feeling they're getting further and further lost in life, Jesus is waiting right behind them with open arms. The options are not as diverse and complicated as they may seem.
Before anyone can "educate" someone they must first be seen as an educator or teacher. For instance, faith in a man to do surgery must first be seen and believed to be a doctor specifically a surgeon. Same goes when you witness to someone, that person must see you as set apart from regular worldly people. Are you preacher, pastor, leader, man of the cloth or some kind of very respectable family man who helps the needy are all examples. It helps for sure.
The view of the text has caused so many issues within Christianity it seems. We have somehow bought into the idea that there are essential and non-essential texts, which has led to the questioning of Genesis as well as the allowance of modernist Christianity. Once we can pick what is essential and what is not we can make our own religion. All texts are essential. In reality, the Bible itself is perfectly preserved and infallible. The Greek (TR) and Hebrew (Masoretic Text) are Gods word. God has promised to preserve his word throughout all generations. The English KJV is the best we have for English speakers. Each word can be trusted. However, when we move over into the Critical Text view, then we as humans can question the scriptures, decide which 'translation' is best and continually modify the word with whatever meaning we want.
It's not possible to "know," if you mean that you couldn't possibly be mistaken – not just about gods, but about anything in the real world. You're not infallible. I'm not infallible. We could always be wrong. You can believe, of course. You can even have good reasons for believing. But it's always possible to be wrong.
Now, I don't really care how you define the labels you call yourself. The label isn't the important thing. I call myself an agnostic atheist, because I don't believe in a god or gods, but I don't claim to know that gods don't exist. But again, the label isn't the important thing.
When it comes to the Bible, books aren't all accurate or all inaccurate. After all, to the extent that we can "know" anything (again, not to the extent that we couldn't be wrong), we know that some things in the Bible are inaccurate. That doesn't make the whole thing inaccurate, and I don't believe that anyone would ever claim otherwise.
"what is it that's keeping you on the fence"
See, that's the wrong idea about agnosticism for most agnostics, I'd say. So it's good that you started out by saying that there were other meanings.
After all, I'm agnostic, but I'm certainly not on the fence. I do not believe in a god – any god – because I've never seen/heard even one piece of good evidence that a god is real, rather than just imaginary. I find it hard to even take gods seriously, without evidence. Again, that makes me an atheist, but I'm still an agnostic (by my definition of those labels, at least).
"why is it that no one can know?"
It's because there's always an alternative explanation that we can't rule out. Again, I don't just mean about gods, but about anything in the real world. Proof isn't possible in the real world, not such that we couldn't possibly be wrong. "Proofs" are for artificial systems of logic or mathematics.
Now, maybe that's being overly precise, overly technical. But if you're not going to be precise, what good is this kind of discussion in the first place?
"There are parts of scripture that are really more vital than others"
And do you have one piece of good evidence that even one of those parts is actually true?
"Would you say it's fair to conclude, based on what these men said, that Jesus claims were claims to divinity?"
Of course not.
It's fair to conclude that the story says that, but stories aren't always true. And as far as I can tell, we have nothing from Jesus himself and nothing from anyone who'd ever met Jesus. All we've got are stories from anonymous authors written long afterwards. We really don't know what he might have said.
"Now the question is whether he's right."
No, the question is still whether or not Jesus actually said that. After all, that's just a story from an anonymous author who doesn't claim to have ever met Jesus. Now, true, whether Jesus said it or not, the important thing is whether or not it's actually true. But, again, I'm just trying to be precise here.
"Do we have any good evidence that he rose from the dead."
No, not as far as I know – nothing distinguishable from delusion and wishful-thinking. In fact, we've got much better evidence that Elvis Presley rose from the dead – still not good evidence, of course (far from it), but lots better than for Jesus.
"Let's start with something specific."
Now, I do agree with you about that, and I'm very glad to hear it. I talk to Christians and Muslims alike, and all I ever hear are vague claims. When I try to get them to be specific, to present just one example of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that's always the point where they don't want to talk anymore.
"The universe had a beginning. Either something started it or nothing started it."
No, I don't think that's true. We don't actually know if the universe had a beginning, because our physical models don't go back that far. You could probably say that about the so-called "Big Bang," though. I'm not a cosmologist, so I don't know very much about that. But either way, "something" is a long, long, long way from a "god" – any god, let alone a particular one.
"We could be mistaken"
OK. I'm glad to hear you say that, too. But,… how do you define "knowing," then? If you were mistaken, you didn't actually "know" the truth, right? How can you be mistaken and still be said to "know" what you were wrong about?
To me, that's impossible. Now, sure, in casual conversation we might all claim to "know" stuff without claiming that we're infallible. But should we really be that casual here? What's the point of even discussing "knowing," if we're not going to be precise?
So, that might be the problem here. When an agnostic says that it's impossible to "know," that agnostic probably assumes that you can't really "know" something if you're wrong. And it's always possible to be wrong, no matter how much evidence we have.
I certainly assume that. If you think that you can be wrong, and still consider it to be "knowing," then that's probably why you're confused by this, don't you think? You might just be talking past those agnostics.
Where you at all able to watch genetically Modified skeptics video about your course?