I understand the distinction DD made. Do you understand that my objection remains despite DD’s distinction? DD’s distinction doesn’t cut my objections off at the knees – it merely postpones their address. Whether the GH represents a foundational truth of Christianity vs. all foundational truths of Christianity is a moot point when the GH’s primary prediction upon which DD’s entire argument rests – that God should be right here, right now, in person, on the evening news and on magazine covers – is not a foundational truth of Christianity.

Yes, I understand that your main objection is with an insistence on a “right here, right now, God” (RHRNG). I think DD’s response — correct me if I’m wrong — is that Christian compensation for the lack of a RHRNG is actually an adoption of tenets more in accord with the MH. That is in fact the entire point of the argument. To make the case more solid, however, I agree that we must revisit the history of Christianity, for instance, first century Christianity, when believers thought Christ’s second return would come within their lifetimes. How then would you expect the story to unfold with each passing century, absent a parting waters or Jesus on the nightly news? I’m not just jesting. The question is, who’s version of reality makes more sense?

My question to you is (–seriously, because I didn’t benefit from extensive Bible study in my youth as many here did) how does the Bible contradict the RHRNG? Why should we NOT expect that God?

In a relatively recent post, DD used this formulation of the GH:

“The Gospel Hypothesis proposes that there exists an all-knowing, all-wise, all-loving and all-powerful Creator Who wants a genuine, personal, eternal relationship with each and every one of us, to the point that He is willing and able to become one of us, to dwell among us, and to die for us so that we can be with Him forever.”

There’s nothing in that quote about requiring God to show up on a magazine cover or anything like that. Ignoring the fact the DD may have used such language in other formulations of this hypothesis, do you believe that the passage quoted above constitutes a Straw Man?

~David D.G.

The more I hear about it, the more I wonder if Joseph Smith wasn’t just an exceptionally far-sighted skeptic.

Zero tolerance for pigeons, for it appears that reasoned arguments won’t work anyways:

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2008/09/corrections-res.html

Okay, good, by my reading he’d been trying to be on both sides of the fence at the same time, and I was wondering if his verbosity and equivocating had confused me that badly that I was reading things incorrectly…

“I have indulged his rudeness and guile long enough. He has yet to make an honest, good faith contribution to the discussion, other than to provide us with an interesting case study in the negative effects a Christian worldview has on a reasonably intellectual mind. That’s not enough to entitle him to retain a place in an honest discussion.”

Starting to see why a good number of atheist blogs have banned him, eh? :p