Lunatic, Liar or Lord ... Resuming

First third of a video by Mr. Zod against CSL as Apologist · Same Video on CSL as Apologist, Roughly Up to Rest of First Half · Coming to Lunatic, Liar or Lord in the End ... and Breaking Off, as Comments Get Invisible · Lunatic, Liar or Lord ... Resuming

Same video by Zod.

27:30 OK, you are aware that in Miracles (the second part) the trilemma has kind of a prequel.

1) This is clearly biography.
2) And, like Socrates and unlike so much other ancient biography, Jesus is someone the biographers really allow you to get to know.

This means, you can eliminate anything from "a bit deluded" to "on the level of a man who thinks he's a poached egg" and you can also eliminate anything from "a bit sleazy" to "a fiend from Hell".

At least as reasonably as you could eliminate either about someone you happened to meet from time to time and spend a great deal of time with.

27:54 "there are so many ways of reading his words"

No, there aren't and you don't even name one, except downgrading the intensity of what CSL already gave as alternative.

28:22 "classical argument from ignorance"

Except it isn't.

CSL is making a case from what we know about the term "God" in the culture, time and place and ethnicity considered, and no, there are no other ways that CSL omitted.

Supposing a pre-Flood Krishna somehow became conflated with a post-Flood character already believing in Pantheism, you can reinterpret Bhagavad Gita in such ways, but probably Krishna was both* somewhat sleazy and somewhat deluded, even if changing memories and changing theologies over many generations and a global Flood can have compounded that, but you can't do that with Jesus.

"type lines of 28:21 reasoning that you use to say it 28:23 couldn't have been a cloud or an 28:24 airplane there must therefore it must 28:25 have been a UFO."

In those cases, we deal with objects or sightings that cannot be inspected at close hand.

The point of the Trilemma is, it comes within a setting where CSL has already reasonably excluded both myth and distortion over a telephone game.

The parallel doesn't hold.

"just trash 28:51 talk people he doesn't like, whether he 28:53 does that directly or, you know, using 28:55 his supposedly past atheist self as a 28:57 punching bag"

So far, you haven't given even one reasonable example of CSL trash talking anyone.

You have given an example showing you totally misunderstand what kind of thing Atheism was culturally speaking in his time.

But that's not a reasonable exemple.

You have heard of the Monty Hall problem?

According to Marilyn vos Savant, if you change the door, you have 2/3 chance of winning and if you keep at your original choice, 1/3.

What you are doing is like if someone were to say "no, it's 1/2 for either" went on to dismiss her for "trash talking Monty Hall" ...

I first actually thought it would be "1/2 either way" but went on, with the assumption the host both knows where the prize is hidden and will not open that door, to check the remaining possibilities and I vindicated Marilyn vos Savant's view.

I chose door A. So far 1/3 it's A.
Host opens B, which is empty (or has a goof prize). Now, zero chance it's B. But, the chance it's A, his opening B was just 1/2. The chance it's C, his opening B after I chose A was 1/1. So, 1/3 it's A, 2/3 it's C.

You refuse to do CSL's "math" and pretend he was trash talking people ... sorry, not the case. That's not a valid excuse.

"From what I understand, people 29:14 have been saying that she was 29:15 homeschooled in, I think, a religious 29:17 conservative environment. Uh, she shows 29:19 that she is not really widely read or 29:21 she shows signs of that anyway. And what 29:24 what she is read in happens to align 29:26 with somebody who maybe produced other 29:28 things but also produced this kind of 29:30 neat, satisfying, conclusion-seeking 29:33 rhetoric."

Is "she" a bad transscript, or did you say "she"? If you meant someone else, I missed that part.

C. S. Lewis was a man.

He was not homeschooled, but spent parts of his education in two or three boarding schools, the latter / last of which he found so unbearable as to (as an Atheist) threaten his father with suicide if he wasn't freed from this school, and thereon he was tutored, by an Atheist, a fan of Frazer, that man being Kirkpatrick.

Oh, wait.**

"where I pretty 0:10 extensively critiqued Hillary Lane's 0:12 thoughts on evil and villainy in 0:14 stories."

My bad. Sorry.

---

* It was in the pre-Flood era, described by a more truthful work as And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity [Genesis 6:11] ** It's more than two weeks since I saw the beginning of the video. I don't know who Hilary Lane is, but it sounds like it could be same gender as Hilary Clinton, though obviously not same politics. I recalled it so much less because I didn't even comment on it.