being an incredibly compulsive person, I’m often tempted to require absolute certainty for my core beliefs. it’s rather unwarranted!

[...] [...]

[...] to rely and trust in the evidence, even if there is something that we could have missed. There is a sufficiency in probability that we must be willing to live with. If we are not, we will forever be in a perpetual state of [...]

[...] # on 12 Jun 2010 Apologetics & Doubt & Losing Faith & Prolegomena Comments (0)Related Posts The Sufficiency of Probability in the Christian Belief [...]

Probability is probably good enough.

But how probable is it, normally, that a body that died, disappeared by floating up into the clouds?

How often does that happen in normal life?

And therefore, how probable is this, versus other explanations?

As far as circularity goes in our worldviews, it’s kind of inevitable in our ultimate criteria if we’re consistent. We can try and go by ‘autonomous’ human reasoning, and justify it with more ‘autonomous reason’ or we can start with Scripture and end with Scripture. If Scripture is our ultimate authority, it should justify itself–otherwise we have appealed to something else as our ultimate authority. As long as the argument is BROADLY circular–some would argue–and as long as it corresponds to our experience of life and the world, it is persuasive. Evidences, while some would argue that they shouldn’t be our primary place of discussion, can still add persuasive power to a ‘broadly circular’ argument…so they should be studied and used–they just shouldn’t be ultimate.

Sorry to nitpick Micheal, but I found your #16 comment to be a bit confusing as to what you were hoping to show. Maybe you can elaborate on it some.

And I don’t think you can make the easy jump that the implication of the resurrection is that Jesus is God.

Do you have anyplace for the experience and power of the Holy Spirit in your arguments for the truth of Christianity (or the Christian Worldview) It seemed like a big proof in the early church. I wonder if you’ve ever tried to incorporate it in your arguments?

Bryan L

“Upon testing the resurrection, it proves to be the most probable explanation for the claims”

Ah yes, much heat on this one but little light. There’s a lot of water being carried by those 15 words. Skeptics are going to play their Extraordinary Evidence card (I keep mine in my wallet). Agnostics are going to shrug their shoulders. Professors are going to earn tenure. Christians will say , “Amen.”

Great post CMP! Great post.

Joe, if were starting on neutral ground, we would start with the claims, implications, and historicity of the events of each religion.

All three are needed.

In the case of Christianity, the claim it that Jesus rose from the grave. The implication is that he is God. The resurrection is a historical account which causes belief in it to have historical testability (which, I believe is a necessity for any claim—it has to go beyond sujective account of any individual). Upont testing the resurrection, it proves to be the most probable explaination for the claims. Therefore the resurrection along with its implications demand our comittment. Therefore, Jesus is Lord.