Tuesday, 14 July 2009
I thought I'd actually create a post so that the photoblog comments wouldn't keep getting cut off with word count limits. Also, I got tired of updating the links on the previous versions. Below is the argument map of my discussion with pychen, LSP1, musterion99, and oeshpdog2 (as I see it) that has been archived here. You can click on any of the thumbnail images below the big one to see other tangent conversations that contributed to the map. Also, see the research archive on 2 Thessalonians 2:11 here.
All of these are the same argument map, so don't get overwhelmed. There are just numerous updates. The biggest one is the current one. Click on these to get the full resolution pics that can actually be read.
Please let me know if there are any spelling mistakes or any corrections to the argument path that would be more fair. And feel free to submit new rebuttals, but be sure you aren't just rehashing what others have already argued to death.
I used "argunet" to make the diagram and with Andrea's (link) help was able to finally figure out how to export an image directly. Luke Muehlhauser on Common Sense Atheism was recommending argument mapping software (link) and I was excited to give it a try with arguments fresh on my mind that were basically complete.
I would like to know if an argument map is easier or more difficult to follow than reading a seemingly unending comment archive. Is it just a different difficulty level? It is helpful to me regardless (and fun to make), but I really have no idea if someone who isn't me gets a clearer picture of the deal. Perhaps it depends on your learning style. I was just curious.
If we accept that God's "righteous lying" (by implication or by proxy) is acceptable, then this allows us (with Premise 2) to conclude that God is still ultimately trustworthy on foundational spiritual matters (as I allowed for in Rebuttal 6B criteria D). There's no deal breaking issue here depending on your expectations. What there is is a direct Bible based argument that addresses conservative Christians when they attempt to stop the conversation with "the Bible says so" in opposition to good evidence in important cultural debates (creationism would be a good example). They know liberal theologies aren't very consistent, but here I've provided an intellectually consistent in-house Christian argument that allows them to believe things that the much of the world embraces with intellectual integrity. Many Christians are basically ideologically coerced into accepting positions they might not normally accept whether or not they have good direct evidence for that specific conclusion. It's not because they are stupid or even uninformed, it's because they are loyal. God is always wiser than the science establishment or anything a mortal can say about any issue and so any ad hoc absolutely implausible excuse is justified. This humanistic travesty shreds solidarity and science. However, the line of reasoning I've presented has the ideological potential to open up that inquiry regardless of what they conclude honestly after that. That's the idea anyway.Ben