These objections are rather dull and poor anyway. I prefer my own list:

1. Supervenience (the necessity of certain beings and properties to generate higher-order beings and properties and the associated relationship, such as that, for example, atoms can exist without human society, but not human society without atoms). The conclusion which I still retain, to this day, is that such principles necessarily eviscerate the concept of a conscious, intelligent being with control over the physical world yet without constituting a physical being itself).This is a fortiori for #2, discussed below.

2. Monism (The concept in philosophy of mind and neuroscience that the mind, the source of a conscious, intelligent being, does not have a component of a non-physical ontology, so eviscerating the assertion that such a being could be intelligent)

3. Ex Nihilo (the coherency of the theistic suggestion that an eternally existing being is ontologically seperate from the physical universe, such that because it was the entity that created the universe in the first place). My eventual resolution was that the theistic assertion pertaining to the creation of a seperate ontology of physical beings and things, of which this being is not of the same substance with, is an impossible contradiction, and is an assertion that requires the propogation of ex nihilo creation by God, which is impossible. I also used this suggestion to propogate the idea within ontology that existence of some form, bare-order properties of being, are uncaused. On the other hand, it is possible to argue that ex nihilo is not a necessary precondition for the existence of God, but in classical theism, it is, being that the assertion in question is that it is the source of all other things, and no things can exist without this being as their antecedant. This primarily targets the Cosmological Argument, which makes an untenable assertion regarding ex nihilo. 

4. Infinity (the coherency or lack thereof of suggesting the actual infinite nature of this being while at the same time maintaining that it was an entity and being unto itself, with providence and control, hence ontologically discrete from other discrete beings such as the physical universe) (the conclusion which I still retain in this matter is that there is an internal contradiction between the two). In this regard, there needs to be a distinction between pantheism and panentheism, the latter being untenable as a position, since the theistic assertion entails an extrinsic being (which necessarily follows from the assertion that it created the universe).

5. Bare-order property (the question of what substance or property describes a discrete conscious being and agent if it is asserted that such a being has no physical body, and what bundles of properties constituted this being). I eventually resolved that no description was being given, and that the theistic assertion was not giving any ontological properties describing precisely of what this entity is comprised, hence the theistic school of thought is overly vague regarding the assertion that some "intelligent agent" exists, and this is not acceptable in proper philosophical discourse. During this process, I also argued for the philosophical school called reism, which I still hold to.

6. Universe of discourse (The necessity of descriptors of property of an ontology, ie, that the theistic assertion regarding "supernaturalism" was/is untenable because it is ruled from a universe of discouse, and is defined solely by virtue of negation to the physical. If I can prove this (and I did) it strengthens the idea of #5. My resolution is that I still hold to this today.

7. Causality (The coherency of arguing that God is an immutable, unchanging being with the suggestion that it is a conscious agent with a mind with thoughts that acts upon whims and has causal powers over the physical universe). I worked on this one for qa very long time. I eventually argued there was an internal contradiction present in the doctrine.

8. Termination (Self-refuting arguments that rely on special pleading fallacies to bolster the thesis that existence of God is valid by the assignation of ad hoc special characteristics that refute the premise of the argument that establishes them. The Cosmological Argument is especially guilty). My current stand on this is that there is an internal contradiction present in arguments that operate in a similar fashion.

delludedgod: great stuff.

Mr.Rage: exactly.

I find it also odd that he says he wrote the book for Xians who don't understand their Faith.

Wow. I know some Xians are arrogant, but here is one admitting that he is going to tell other Xians how they should view their beliefs.

The self-righteous presumptiveness aside, one has to wonder why someone would believe in something they don't understand?

It seems this is just another case of a guy willing to take advantage of the poor Xian sheep to make a buck.  The arguments are always the same but they just keep using different stories to explain them. Dressing a pig in Vera Wang, doesn't make a beautiful woman.

Does the site look like a christian billboard advertisement to you? 

Third grade book report post.

stuntgibbon - here you go, this is a site someone has dedicated to Dr. Keller. A lot of what this guy has to say on this site has been aimed for already beliving Christians, BUT, there is a section if you scroll down just a little with the heading "The Trouble with Christianity: Why it's so Hard to Believe it" Below it there are links to a series of sermons he gave aimed specifically towards atheists and agnostics. They are each about 30-40mins long, and I know it's a real pain to be like, "I don't want to listen to sermons." But do me a favor? Just try one out? A lot of atheists end up, in the worst case senario, telling me that, while they do not believe what Dr. Keller puts forward can possibly be true, they admit that he does lay plausible groundwork for his beliefs. Here's the site:

http://www.stevekmccoy.com/reformissionary/2005/07/tim_keller_arti.html

 there is also this one which I think might be aimed more for Christians, but you can check it out if you want:

http://www.djchuang.com/keller/

And on one more note, I couldn't agree more with you. Plenty of people are nice, from all over the world. Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Shintos. So far as I know there's nothing in the Bible that would suggest otherwise, or say that only Christians were capable of kindness. I appreciate the compliment, and I understand that the mere act of being nice doesn't give anyone reason to believe anything, but perhaps this illustration can help?

If I have heard a really great song, or seen a really great movie, or gone to a museum and seen an awesome piece of artwork, the first thing I do is run out and tell a friend, "Ah man, you gotta hear this song! It's amazing!" or, "Dude, did you see that movie, holy crap - that part with the guns and explosions was ccrrraaazzzyyyy" In other words, when you find something really great - you want to share the experience.

Well as a former agnostic (more apathetic, actually) I found something really great. A church that doesn't talk down to me or other people who don't believe me. But, instead, gives my doubts the time and attention they deserve, and answers them in ways that don't send me flaming out of the room screaming, "You people are idiots, how can you believe such nonsense!?!?!?!?!"

 Let me know if there's anything else ya need. Sorry that some of you feel this is a "third grade report card", I've come to the realization that, as a Christian, you can't escape these types of assumptions by people, but it's cool - I understand why you think that, frankly, because it's true of so many people who go to church and call themselves Christians, so I don't really blame you. But I do hope you give those sites and that book a shot, they actually might give you some things to consider that you didn't before.

Sincerely,

- Nick 

better yet, why don't you forward DG's post to "Dr." keller and have him give us his sobering answers to these questions?

I've gone through three stories, and don't think this guy's made any more progress (or sense) than anyone else. In each of them, so far, he assumes that god is already a given and writes about how to spruce up the message.

http://www.redeemer2.com/themovement/issues/2004/oct/deconstructing.html

http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dwh8457_4dq8mc5&revision=_latest

http://www.dbu.edu/jeanhumphreys/DeathDying/preachinghell.htm

I'm curious to learn, since you called yourself agnostic before, how any of this convinced you? Furthermore, could you share with me the reasons you were agnostic in the first place and how this sort of thing served as adequate response to those points?

Well first, yes... it DID help a little, but not how you might have envisioned. All of the things you've mentioned are positive experiences related to forms of entertainment. To you, I suspect, it wouldn't matter if any part of what the church was saying was true as long as it makes you feel good. I feel great when I hear a song I like or see a thrilling film. By equating your christianity with this kind of experience is telling. And here, it seems that some combination of the nice pastor, the welcoming people, singing the songs, eating their cookies, etc. is giving you that pleasurable total experience. (which your brain is rewarding you with chemicals that make you feel good, possibly causing a partial addiction to this experience.)

Also, Next time you're at a museum, check out the fossils too!!

Whew, okay guys - so wow, thanks for all the feedback! I hope you can appreciate that I am a little overwhelmed, there's just so much to respond to a only a certain amount of time to do it! So here we go, as an overview:

 So #1 – Yes, daedalus, that was a serious offer, I’d be more than happy to buy you or the other two people who responded to my initial post a copy of Dr. Keller’s book. You’d just have to let me know how you’d want to go about making the exchange.

       #2 – To Daretoknow, I have no ignorerd Deludedgod’s post, sorry if I gave that impression, I should have mentioned earlier that I am working through each point he has made on that list in a word document here at home so I can better articulate my responses to his questions by giving myself the time those questions deserve. In all honesty, Deludedgod’s post, as you can see for yourself, was extremely dense and well thought out, and requires a bit of time to unpack, dissect and respond to, I would only hope that you have a little patience with me in the processJ To answer your next question, I would love to forward his post to Dr. Keller (by the way, I only say “Dr.” as a sign of respect because I’ve never met the man and were not on a first name basis. Redeemer is a big church of almost 6,000 regular attendees (mostly agnostic) and Dr. Keller’s time is, for this reason, in high demand))

       #3 – Stuntgibbon, thanks man! Honestly, whether or not you think Dr. Keller is right or no on the assertions he is making, it’s good to find someone who actually took the time to follow up and make sure they knew why they disagreed with a Christian, rather than just blowing them off! To answer your question, I use the term “agnostic” to describe this, I was raised in a Methodist church, never became a member, didn’t really care who the people were, didn’t know anything about God or Jesus, and honestly, I didn’t really think anything about them was relevant. It’s not that I didn’t care about them, it was just that, in my opinion at the time, if it worked for you, great! If you weren’t into it, great! I wasn’t really all that excited, I admit, when my friends invited me to a church here in New York my freshman year at college, but there was nothing else to do and I didn’t want to hang out in the city by myself, you know? How this stuff served as an adequate response to my initially…apathy? That’s a great point – it wasn’t one specific thing, and it wasn’t one slamdunk argument, though there were those. It was a slow series of questions I was posed, a slow series of questions I posed Christians, small debate, little tidbits, stuff like that. Oh, wait, I’ve suddenly realized I’m not directly answer the question, I’ve been giving you white-noise. Ah, okay, well there was this, for example: One question that was posed was, “How could the early Christian church have arisen in a culture of Jewish people living in 1^st Century Palestine, keeping in mind that this was a culture that had the commandment “Worship no Gods before me” beaten into them for 2,000 years. How do people like this, suddenly, and without explaination, begin to worship a peasant as if he were God?” Now look, automatically by saying that I’ve opened a can of worms that has been debated through the centuries, and even though I’ve had 4 1/2 of studying this concept and the history that surrounds it, I’m in no way an expert. The only point I’m making here is providing a small example of one of the many many arguments that eventually convinced me that events like the resurrection were not a hoax, were not legends, but rather, were true. And as truth, gave weight and credit to the Christian world-view and the correct one. Please, please, please – I’ve heard many valid arguments attacking this claim, and I’m not opposed to them, I didn’t bring it up to spark a debate, but rather, simply to answer your question. If you’re more interested in this subject, we can start another message board with that as the topic.

       #4 – AmericanIdle – Skeptnick was a name that was directly related to my first post here on these boards, entitled “Skeptical of my Skepticism” Haha, I like your suggestion though, and it is probably more accurate if what you mean to say is that I am not as skeptical about God as my name implies, but that would be because it was assumed I was referring to being skeptical of God in the first place. Now onto your point for point:

       If the ideology fails completely from a logical standpoint, I would agree – don’t believe it. Who’s logical standpoint are we using to asses whether it passes or fails? One of the most startling things I found during my conversion to Christianity was that the Bible did not actually teach or say what I had assumed it did. For that reason, I’ve actually come to learn that what I initially thought were utter contradictions were actually deeper consistencies than I first realized.

       If the ideology runs contradictory to everything we can study about the world,I would say this is good reason to start being skeptical, however, what if it’s not the ideology that is mistaken, but rather, our interpretation of it? What if a deeper and truer understanding of it actually revealed its consistency with everything we can study about the world?

       If the sacred scriptures of said ideology can be shown to be inaccurate, contradictory and of mythical origin, I would say sure – absolutely, if it’s proven 100% that yes all of this is true, then there is no reason to take said ideology seriously, but this point carries with it an underlying assumption, namely, that the tools and processes we use at this pint and time can and do show the inaccuracy, contradictory and mythology of the sacred texts. Now if we’re using our current tools and processes to judge that this is true, what tool or process are we using to judge that our tools and processes are giving us an “accurate reading”?

       More to say, but I don’t want to loose track of the initial subject of this post, which was to provide for you a book and series of talks, sermons and lectures that might possibly help to answer some of your questions.

Sincerely,

       - Skeptnick

Huh?

My post did not even constitute a set of arguments! It merely represents a set of current philosophical positions I hold to an an extremely summarized format. I don't understand precisely what you are going to "unpack", since I haven't actually argued for any of those points within that summary. The summary is just a summary, not an argument. As for the thesis that supports those points, I'm not finished. But its at 100 pages and counting.

Ohooooooooyes

Yet another life-changing book unlike all the thousands of life-changing books before it that claimed to be the real deal but weren't, this one is the real deal honest Indian trust me (cough) buy it today,

Although of course if it was the real deal, it would be a available for free online, ie a free ebook

Is it ?

let me guess

No

Then I can only surmise this is another snake oil salesman

      and so few understood Jesus/Buddha

Understanding takes caring and devotion ....

Scratch on wood ? Okay , did that , now what?

SHIT, I can't get enough of DG word assembly .....