Tom Tillerman

“People who understand logic can give reasons for their views.” - William Lane Craig

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

“Always be ready to give a [logical] defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope and confident assurance [elicited by faith] that is within you, yet [do it] with gentleness and respect.” — 1 Peter 3:15, AMP

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

@whocatrs28507 @DrFrankTurek Good try, but babies aren’t heterosexual, either, so that one doesn’t really work.

I’d say babies are asexual, but that’s one of the letters in the alphabet club these days, so I don’t want to give them a win! 😉

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

I answered yes, meaning I think that some people are born with a predisposition toward same-sex attraction. It is disordered, but it may very well be inherent.

Of course, this is not favorable to the LGBT cause because it suggests such attraction is a disability, like being born with any other disorder.

It also does not imply same-sex sexual activity is permissible, any more than indulging any other destructive predisposition would be. In a broad sense, we are all born with strong predispositions to do one or even many disordered and destructive things. Having same-sex attraction and not being able to indulge it is hard, but the Spirit is more than adequate to the task.

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

@Fair_and_Biased @autocorrect2_0 It’s a logical conclusion on consequentialism, which is why it fails as a moral theory.

Plug human lives into a felicific calculator, and you end up talking about your own children in terms of “payoffs.”

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

Not a study. A “discussion.”

“We will therefore set our discussion about the nature and ethical dimensions of the human–dog relationship against the background of the current empirical knowledge on dog (social) cognition.” (emphasis mine)

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

@michaelshermer Great film. A true classic of the genre.

The remake didn’t do it justice.

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

@Mhakoyy @darwintojesus @Tobydeaux91 @CosmicSkeptic @DrWilliamLCraig I note you have now shifted the argument and are resorting to unoriginal & uninformed Internet atheist attacks.

I’ll take that as a concession. QED.

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

@Mhakoyy @darwintojesus @Tobydeaux91 @CosmicSkeptic @DrWilliamLCraig How does biology suggest dogs can understand your reasons? You’re going to have to elaborate on, and substantiate, that one.

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

@Mhakoyy @darwintojesus @Tobydeaux91 @CosmicSkeptic @DrWilliamLCraig Or we can embrace your new argument to show that God is useful and meaningful to us. How so?

Because we can clearly understand His emotion, follow His commands, empathize, and strive to be His best friend—which was His original design for us.

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

Maintain the analogy. Does your dog understand your reasons for doing things? Even one?

No, he does not. On your initial argument, that would mean you are a useless, pointless, and meaningless entity to him.

But now you have argued persuasively that isn’t the case, so your argument fails.

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

@Mhakoyy @darwintojesus @Tobydeaux91 @CosmicSkeptic @DrWilliamLCraig Your dog lacks the ability to assess you. He simply cannot understand you. To him, your actions are unintelligible, incomprehensible.

Does that make you a useless, pointless, and meaningless entity to him?

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

One further aside: I recently watched a debate between Skydive Phil (who it seems was in the audience) and Stephen Meyer. In both that case and this one, the “anti-theists” raised animal suffering as a key reason for doubting the existence of God. (Phil’s was part of his personal story for rejecting his parents’ faith.)

Isn’t that interesting? Not human suffering—animal suffering, specifically.

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

@Mhakoyy @darwintojesus @Tobydeaux91 @CosmicSkeptic @DrWilliamLCraig And not to be pedantic, but…

“there’s no inherent reason for it” is a strawman since the argument was that there ARE reasons, we just don’t have access to them.

And “constructed to comfort ourselves” is just you illicitly inserting your conclusion without arguing for it.

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

@Mhakoyy @darwintojesus @Tobydeaux91 @CosmicSkeptic @DrWilliamLCraig The reasons of a vastly superior intelligence are “indistinguishable from” there being no reasons at all?

I don’t think you thought that one through, friend.

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

@dannyphiltalk @darwintojesus @CosmicSkeptic @DrWilliamLCraig Danny, do you know what “gaslighting” means?

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

@darwintojesus @CosmicSkeptic @DrWilliamLCraig BTW - Did anyone else notice that it was the theist (Craig) who mostly used science and reason to support his arguments while the agnostic (O’Connor) mostly relied on emotion and intuition? Fascinating!

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

Great points all. Anthropomorphizing is one of main reasons these arguments land, and we need to be able to think beyond that sort of emotional appeal.

Without re-watching the debate to check, I believe Dr. Craig pressed on a few of your points. In particular, I recall at one point he said O’Connor would need to stop merely expressing his (emotional) opinions and offer some scientific evidence, particularly for his suggestion that animals can reflect on their suffering like we can.

I also recall that when O’Connor tried to meet that challenge, he can only paraphrase one source and couldn’t cite. This left Dr. Craig in the better position because his breadth of knowledge and memory for citations is unparalleled!

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

@Jacob1832Jacob @BubbyFilmsINC @farmingandJesus Sorry, I don’t know what this means. Can you make your argument clearer and more explicit?

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

All of whose apostles? How do they meet the criteria?

Give me a specific example.

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

@Jacob1832Jacob @BubbyFilmsINC @farmingandJesus Your turn. My criteria come from the core biblical canon that every branch of the Christian church accepts.

What are your criteria? From where are they derived? And who do you claim meets them who is living today?

[Tom Tillerman @ThomasTillerman]

@Jacob1832Jacob @BubbyFilmsINC @farmingandJesus Yes, of course.

- Personally commissioned by Christ (Gal. 1:1)
- Eyewitness of the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8)
- Authenticated by apostolic signs and miracles (2 Cor. 12:12)
- And also recognized by the other apostles (Gal. 2:9)