Dealing with the Reasonable vs. the Possible

What is the difference between “possible” and “reasonable”? Why does it matter? How can mastery of this distinction help us to think clearly before we begin to examine the case for the Christian Worldview?

When dealing with the reasonable & the possible, one must make a clear distinction between the too when searching for answers.  Yes, when I got through the alleged bible contradiction and biblical difficulties, I try to go through all possible answers to my question, but the answer still must be reasonable.  I could go even farther and look for every possible answer, but I only need to look for the reasonable answer….whatever that might be.  Anything is possible, but not everything is reasonable.

Believing in an inerrant Bible is about a reasonable trust in God.  This is a search for a reasonable truth!

About M. Rodriguez

When I first received Christ salvation, I made it a priority to read the whole bible and I did. But it was the Bible that made me question my faith. For I found it flawed and lacking. Due to this I launched a personal inquiry/investigation into my faith, and ultimately realized that the Christian God of the Bible was indeed man-made. Now I Blog about those findings and life after Christ.
This entry was posted in atheist vs christian, god, reason, reasoning, religion vs. science, scriptural difficulties, youtube and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Dealing with the Reasonable vs. the Possible

  1. imbrocata says:

    Thanks for the video. It is, I believe, one small way I can give audience to the arguments of my former life as a Christian. I watched the whole thing and made notes. To be honest, I did indeed find this to be completely circular and at least two “Strawmen” arguments as well. One (4:04), “..not willing to listen to the answers anyway”, and two (4:55) “..[one must] allow God to remove the hatred one has for God.”. This seems to be completely biased and does not consider other ‘possibilities; 1. others may listen, 2. it really is a sincere belief that Atheists do not believe in the existence of any god. (if you cannot accept that either of these might be true, it seems to demonstrate a bias to believing what you want to believe while discounting what might be a reasonable and possible alternative.)
    It is worth noting that while he speaks about the Atheist not wanting to “..use the word of God – that kind of circular argument doesn’t move me..”, he then does exactly that and launches right into …the word of God.
    While this seems hopelessly biased to me – what of a “Tu quoque” argument? Am I willing to wield the scalpel of truth to my own biases to find the truth? And what is the question? If the question is, “Does God exist?”, is it really fair to pre-suppose, or even to demand the assumption of God’s existence (“the truth is that God has to remove this ‘hatred’ I had for God.”) in order to “[be] willing to listen to the evidence [for God’s existence?]”. Would you feel that was a fair way of going about determining the existence of Allah, Zeus or Buddha? That first you had to remove your hatred for Allah, Zeus or Buddha before you would be willing to listen to the evidence for the same? (Or are you just not willing to listen to the answers anyway? OR, do you just sincerely believe such ‘gods’ do not exist in the first place?)
    There is much more I could say, but briefly; which view holds the greater bias? ‘Evidence for God will be demonstrated only after one has already accepted that God exists’ ..or.. ‘That evidence for God cannot rest on the claim that God exists, as that is not true evidence’?
    Thanks for the post.

    • Thanks for your feedback imbrocta,

      But can you explain more by what you mean in him using a tu quoque argument?

      • imbrocata says:

        Sure – but let there be no confusion, I didn’t say ‘he’ was using a “Tu Quoque” but asking, in response to my own charge (that ‘this is biased’) I being biased too? The “Tu Quoque” is directed at myself, by myself.
        Basically, is it fair to make these accusations if I’m guilty of the same level of bias?
        Hope that helps:)

  2. IgnorantiaNescia says:

    Well, hating the subject being contemplating does create strong biases of its own…

    But I agree that ‘That evidence for God cannot rest on the claim that God exists, as that is not true evidence’ is the better principle.

  3. that reminds me of the quote from the age of Reason by Thomas Paine

    “A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal.”

    • ignorantianescia says:

      It’s an interesting quote, but I’m not sure what “required” means (required by whom?) and depending on its meaning I might disagree.

  4. Pingback: Religion vs. Science: How they are fundamentally incompatible? | The BitterSweet End

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s