Spirituality
06 May 05
11 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiI think a rationalist theistic viewpoint we say that God would leave his footprints according to the physical laws he created. If we are to accept that there is evidence we can see of God's existence, then that evidence should be consistent with how things act in our physical reality. It's simply pointless to say that God doesn't have to follow physical laws whenever the creationist is stumped for an explanation; that is simply saying his existence is not discernible by the use of reason. As between your arbitrary rule that nothing in the Bible is a metaphor except if it directly says it is and the normal rule of science that certain physical laws are uniform, proven over and over again by observation and experiment, I have to say that I prefer the latter.
We are dealing with truth. On one hand we have God's revelation - knowledge from God to man, and the deductive knowledge that can be logically inferred. On the other hand we have interpretations of empirical data (not direct knowledge) but rather indirect theories and hypothesis using inductive reasoning to explain empirical data.
I don't refuse any ...[text shortened]... ?
(No one debunk the data - it is merely the interpretation of that data that is questioned.)
11 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ColettiThis is exactly what I've been saying about faith all along in this thread. Faith demands that empirical evidence conform to its doctrine. Science conforms to the current empirical evidence.
And empirical data should not take precedence over revelatory information.
You ask me why God should be ruled out. Did you even read these last few posts that I've written? Please turn back to my last post on page 10 for example. I said that "Goddunnit" is "airtight," even citing this excuse as "the only defense some one has for a global flood 4000 years ago." Sadly, it's no more helpful than saying that "magic." or "little green gnomes" did it. Unfortunately, it is the only argument that you have. Coletti despite all your kicking and thrashing, you're doing exactly what I predicted you would: deny any natural evidence against your claims, declare that there is abundant natural evidence to support your idea, and then make pleas to special intervention.
According to your logic, it is completely reasonable to say that the entire earth is engulfed in flames right now. Even though every peice of empirical data that we have at this moment declares that this is untrue. Remember though, God can do it. God can do anything. Is it your opinion that we should enervate the power of reason in this manner?
Finally, you mentioned that there were plenty of reasonable solutions to my questions about the Egyptians, but you offered not a single one (well other than water-wings). Instead you retreated to promoting the efficacy of "Goddunnit." As before when you talked big, claiming that "there is enough scientific evidence so the we can not rule out the flood," and then, failing to present even a scientific case, leaving us only with a form of "God works in mysterious ways."
11 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
I think a rationalist theistic viewpoint we say that God would leave his footprints according to the physical laws he created. If we are to accept that there is evidence we can see of God's existence, then that evidence should be consistent with how things act in our physical reality. It's simply pointless to say that God doesn't have to follo ...[text shortened]... roven over and over again by observation and experiment, I have to say that I prefer the latter.
I think a rationalist theistic viewpoint we say that God would leave his footprints according to the physical laws he created. If we are to accept that there is evidence we can see of God's existence, then that evidence should be consistent with how things act in our physical reality.
I disagree. God is not limited by the laws he created - that's not logical.
that is simply saying his existence is not discernible by the use of reason.
God's existence is not the question. The question is are you presupposing the God of the Bible is real or not.
As between your arbitrary rule that nothing in the Bible is a metaphor except if it directly says it is ...
You must mean the logical rule of a theist - that one should assume the Bible is speaking plainly unless it says otherwise. This is the opposite of arbitrary - it is objective.
...and the normal rule of science that certain physical laws are uniform, proven over and over again by observation and experiment, I have to say that I prefer the latter
No one is denying the laws of physics apply to the natural world - but obviously they would not to the Creator of those laws or the God of the Bible who has many times violated those rules - they are called miracles
The first step to any reasonable discussion should be an acknowledgment of what axioms you are starting with. If your axioms conflict with someone else's, there's no point in bashing the other persons conclusions - only if we have the same axioms (or you assume them for the sake of argument) and come to different answers, then we have something to debate.
SO I AGAIN ASK - by what reasoning does one deny the possible that God has directly intervened in any event the comes from a book that is ALL ABOUT GOD? (Is that a hard question? Afraid I am trying to trick you? What are you afraid of?)
11 May 05
Originally posted by Coletti[b] I think a rationalist theistic viewpoint we say that God would leave his footprints according to the physical laws he created. If we are to accept that there is evidence we can see of God's existence, then that evidence should be consistent with how things act in our physical reality.
I disagree. God is not limited by the laws he ...[text shortened]... ABOUT GOD? (Is that a hard question? Afraid I am trying to trick you? What are you afraid of?)[/b] Since your whole argument comes down to "begging the question" i.e. The Bible is the Word of God so therefore everything in it must be true, therefore anything contrary to the Bible must not be true; there's little sense debating it further. This is essentially the same argument people make when they claim Satan seeded dinosaur fossils around to deceive. Simply stated, your belief is based on nothing more than your insistence that a collection of writings written by semisavages is superior to modern science in explaining data. You are making your own rules up; where does the Bible say ALL the stories in it are LITERALLY true. If a story fails to comport with physical evidence, it should be assumed to be just that: a story.
I get sick of your ridiculous "what are you afraid of" comments; I think it shows that you know your comments are intellectually lightweight. One doesn't running to miracles if the facts can be explained without them; do you concede that the Flood story is contrary to all empirical evidence and can only be accepted if you ignore that evidence and say "Goddunnit"? If so, say so. I don't deny it's "possible" in some remote sense, but if the empirical facts say differently I will say that that possibility is infinitesimally small.
11 May 05
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder"This is essentially the same argument people make when they claim Satan seeded dinosaur fossils around to deceive."
Since your whole argument comes down to "begging the question" i.e. The Bible is the Word of God so therefore everything in it must be true, therefore anything contrary to the Bible must not be true; there's little sense de ...[text shortened]... rently I will say that that possibility is infinitesimally small.
That's stupid. I would never make this argument - it has no Scriptural support.
"If a story fails to comport with physical evidence, it should be assumed to be just that: a story."
You keep making the mistake of assuming an interpretation of the evidence is the absolute truth.
"Flood story is contrary to all empirical evidence "
Wrong again. And one should never make a universal assertion if one is trying to be scientific about things.
"empirical facts say differently"
And I am accused of listening to taking snakes - you are saying that rocks are speaking to you. Hmmm...
You still do not differentiate between facts and interpretation. That's a real problem with many science worshipers - the assume that some things are facts - as if they were written on stone - when they are merely interpretations which may or may not be correct. Science is not law - and when you assume the conclusion of scientist - you become a worshiper of science.
11 May 05
Originally posted by Colettion one hand you have nothing but stone age man asserting that was god's revelation, that doesn't come close to a rational argument to refute geological processes. Nor does it explain the writings about the flood by an earlier pagan culture replete with an entire cast of gods doing the revealing.
We are dealing with truth. On one hand we have God's revelation - knowledge from God to man, and the deductive knowledge that can be logically inferred. On the other hand we have interpretations of empirical data (not direct knowledge) but rather indirect theories and hypothesis using inductive reasoning to explain empirical data.
I don't refuse any ...[text shortened]... ?
(No one debunk the data - it is merely the interpretation of that data that is questioned.)
11 May 05
Originally posted by Coletti" Wrong again. And one should never make a universal assertion if one is trying to be scientific about things."
"This is essentially the same argument people make when they claim Satan seeded dinosaur fossils around to deceive."
That's stupid. I would never make this argument - it has no Scriptural support.
"If a story fails to comport with physical evidence, it should be assumed to be just that: a story."
You keep making the mistake of assuming an inte ...[text shortened]... s not law - and when you assume the conclusion of scientist - you become a worshiper of science.
hmmmmmm isnt that a universal assertion?
You do not get to set rules for science. and of course there are universal assertions in science. " a normal can only intersect a plane once" , " for every action , there is an equal reaction in the opposite direction" , "There is exactly one proton in a hydrigen atom" and " a world wide flood never happened"
11 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiSince you insist on using a non-standard definition of empirical facts i.e. everything is an interpretation, there's little point in arguing further. This is the type of argument that says we can't tell if anything is real as it's all our perceptions. This is an interesting argument if you're a first year philosophy student or a stoner; but a complete waste of time for anyone else. You also keep up with the ridiculous assertion that people "worship" science because they realize that the scientific method leads to the most reliable explanations of data. "Worship" is not needed; all we have to do is see what science has done with the abilities Man was given. Religion never built a computer or a Model T and never will and your simple-minded refusal to look at the empirical facts without demanding that they must fit into your preconceived conclusion makes you a poor debater and a fanatic.
"This is essentially the same argument people make when they claim Satan seeded dinosaur fossils around to deceive."
That's stupid. I would never make this argument - it has no Scriptural support.
"If a story fails to comport with physical evidence, it should be assumed to be just that: a story."
You keep making the mistake of assuming an inte ...[text shortened]... s not law - and when you assume the conclusion of scientist - you become a worshiper of science.
11 May 05
SO I AGAIN ASK - by what reasoning does one deny the possible that God has directly intervened in any event the comes from a book that is ALL ABOUT GOD? (Is that a hard question? Afraid I am trying to trick you? What are you afraid of?)SO I AGAIN ASK - by what reasoning does one deny the possible that God has directly intervened in any event the comes from a book that is ALL ABOUT GOD? (Is that a hard question? Afraid I am trying to trick you? What are you afraid of?)
Stop trying to weasel out of my questions. Now you claim that there are plenty of reasonable solutions to my questions about the Egyptians. Give me two reasonable ones.
Right now you're being downright dishonest. I conceded, even before when you were still feigning scientific argument, that "Goddunnit" is "airtight."
The problem isn't that it is illogical. It's that it is a horribly pathetic position. If you say, "Goddunnit" and I say "It was magic," then we reach a stalemate. We have two fiat claims to truth, and neither one's veracity can be discerned from the natural. In fact, "Goddunnit" is on par with any other supernatural claim. If I say a superdog did it because superdog can do anything, then how can you logically refute my claim? All you have is what you consider to be scriptural support. Even that is completely subjective.
If you insist, however, on sporting such a disappointing last and only defense, at least do not pretend. Instead of drawing us into this long and fruitless discussion, be upfront from the get go. Don't claim that there is plenty of scientific evidece for this or that. Don't promise that you have a complete assortment of reasonable solutions. Just say, "Goddunnit."
How does the Golden Gate Bridge not collapse? Goddunnit.
Why is the real exchange rate unrelated to macroeconomic aggregates in the short term, but closely linked to them in the long term? Goddunnit.
Drop the facade of reasonability, Col.
11 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is what he always does when backed to the wall with evidence. He pulled that crap with me the thread "An analogy of Faith."
Since you insist on using a non-standard definition of empirical facts i.e. everything is an interpretation, there's little point in arguing further. This is the type of argument that says we can't tell if anything is real as ...[text shortened]... ur preconceived conclusion makes you a poor debater and a fanatic.
11 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionSo, since Coletti, KellyJay, dj2becker, Darifus, etc. etc. always resort to these sorts of tactics when debating claims made by the Bible concerning the natural world, why do you all persist in arguing about it? You know that there position is epistemically indefensible; you know they are willing to bite any bullet to salvage their cherished Biblical views; you know they will even go so far as to endorse fairly radical forms of skepticism (everything is just interpretation, proof requires certainty, etc.) until the next debate, when they will forget about these claims and assert that their beliefs are epistemically justifed. You know that even if you straight up refuted them, deducing a contradiction from their views, they would still not be budged from their position. Given all this, why do you continue to waste your time trying to persuade them to take their blinders off?
This is what he always does when backed to the wall with evidence. He pulled that crap with me the thread "An analogy of Faith."
11 May 05
Originally posted by bbarrWe are trying to save their immortal souls
So, since Coletti, KellyJay, dj2becker, Darifus, etc. etc. always resort to these sorts of tactics when debating claims made by the Bible concerning the natural world, why do you all persist in arguing about it? You know that there position is epistemically indefensible; you know they are willing to bite any bullet to salvage their cherished Biblical views; y ...[text shortened]... this, why do you continue to waste your time trying to persuade them to take their blinders off?
