Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 271 of 477 (559148)
05-07-2010 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Pauline
05-06-2010 9:11 PM


Re: Why Not Answer Woodsy's Question?
There now, was that so difficult? Then why did you completely ignore that same request made by several people? And try to draw us off with a great big red herring for Woodsy's request?
Let's look at that question again (with my emphasis added):
Woodsy; Msg 215 writes:
Dr. Sing; Msg 213 writes:
Here, we are dealing with supernaturalism. What, on the planet, is the point in making it subject to the scientific method? There are other, and more relevant, ways to scrutinize this. But atheists somehow object...I don't get it.
OK, great, lets hear about them! What are these other ways? How are they demonstrated to be reliable?
To which you finally at long last respond with:
Philosophy! Metaphysics, Ethics, Logic, Philosophy of religion.
OK, philosophy, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion would likely deal with the supernatural. But ethics? That would deal with morality, but the supernatural? Sorry, I can't buy that one. You need to show some kind of support for that claim. And logic? Sorry, but logic does not deal with the supernatural. Logic is a tool used by other disciplines, but it does not deal with the supernatural -- unless you're trying to pull the same presuppositional nonsense that sac???? was trying to. No, I do not buy that one at all.
You threw in two extraneous disciplines that do not deal with the supernatural, ethics and logic. Please support their inclusion.
OK, now that you have kind of answered Woodsy's first question, What are these other ways?, what about his second much more pertinent question? How are they demonstrated to be reliable?
Well? How are they demonstrated to be reliable? Or are they at all reliable? You know, that's really been the question all along. And it directly addresses Dr. Adequate's request for some kind of evidence. Science cannot deal with the supernatural, but can those other disciplines really deal with the supernatural either?
Here's the thing about the supernatural: we don't know anything about it; we are incapable of knowing anything about the supernatural. So we made stuff up about the supernatural. Even the supernatural itself is something that we just made up. Sure, several of those things were made up milennia ago, but they were still just made up. So all we have are a number of WAGs ("wild guesses") and a mountain of more guesses based on those WAGs that aren't quite as WA'd as the WAGs they're using as their premises, and analysis and critiques of all those guesses.
So then, how are those disciplines you named (the ones that actually count) demonstrated to be reliable in dealing with the supernatural?
If you want to categorize my argument into one of these, that's ethics. Dealing with morality!
As has already been pointed out to you more than once, that argument of yours was extraneous, having nothing to do with the question you were "replying" to. Which makes your action there ethically questionable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Pauline, posted 05-06-2010 9:11 PM Pauline has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 272 of 477 (559150)
05-07-2010 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Pauline
05-06-2010 8:45 PM


Re: Half a circle... is 180 degrees
First, if that message was intended to be a reply to me, then why were you instead replying to Dr. A?
And please explain what part of "do not tie your shoe in a watermelon patch" that you do not understand. If you are not actually trying to pull a bait-and-switch, then isn't it also in your interest to not give the appearance of pulling one?
Should I write this another 200,000 hundred times? Will you believe me then?
First, it's not a matter of my believing it, but rather a matter of keeping your communication clear and keeping you from causing confusion.
For example, in Message 229, you stated:
If the atheists do not agree that the scientific method is useless, then then is debate is useless.
In his Message 245, Dr. Adequate responded to that with:
How can we agree that the scientific method is useless? It abolished smallpox, it put men on the moon, and it is the reason why we have computers that can communicate over the Internet. We couldn't even be having this discussion if not for the fact that the scientific method totally kicks ass.
Was he replying to your other statements that the scientific method is useless in dealing with the supernatural? No, he was not. Instead, he was replying to your new statement that it's useless for anything. I came along only recently, but he's been part of the discussion all along. By not stating what you intended, you generated confusion. Now, it's in creationists' interest to generate confusion, but if you are interested in honest discussion then you do not want to generate confusion, but rather to eliminate confusion. That is what you want, right?
So, should you have to include that "in dealing with the supernatural" qualifier "another 200,000 hundred times" as per your little tantrum? No, of course not! You only need to include it every time you repeat that statement! In order to avoid causing confusion. Such as the confusion that you had caused Dr. Adequate.
Really, it's so obvious I don't see why it has to be explained to you more than once -- having had to explain it to you even once is one time too many. Now, why do I have this feeling that you still will not understand such a basic and obvious concept as making clear statements so as to prevent confusion and misunderstanding.
Evidence is what he wants. And I assume he means evidence from a physical source of some sort. Something tangible! Something that be tested via experiments...since it seems like what he sees is what he believes and what he doesn't see with his eyes, automatically and dogmatically cannot exist!
Do you see the problem, dw1?
It chokes the discussion.
I don't think that you see the problem, Doc.
I forget Dr. A's religious history, but a lot of atheists used to be theists. They bought completely into all the made-up stuff that religion is based on and that religion continues to dream up. They grew out of it, often through a long gut-wretching process of discovering that none of what they used to believe is true.
Now you're trying to drag them back into theism. Well, you're going to need to offer some damned good reasons for them to drink that kool-aid again! Which is something that you have not offered and that you resist trying to offer.
Are you starting to see the problem, Doc?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Pauline, posted 05-06-2010 8:45 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Pauline, posted 05-08-2010 11:46 PM dwise1 has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 273 of 477 (559158)
05-07-2010 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Pauline
05-06-2010 9:11 PM


Re: Why Not Answer Woodsy's Question?
But did you answer Woodsy's simple, direct, and utterly necessary question? No, you did not. You did not even start to answer it. Made absolutely no attempt to answer it. Instead, you redirected our attention away from that question with an entirely unrelated argument. Why didn't you just answer his question? Or at the very least acknowledge it and offer some kind of explanation why you can't answer it ... or explicitly refuse to answer it with some semblance of an explanation as to why?
No, you stated flat-out that you had something, "other, and more relevant, ways to scrutinize {the supernatural}", and then you completely avoided presenting any further information about those "ways". Like far too many other Christians before you have repeatedly done far too many times. Like creationists will go on and on about all this evidence they have for creation and yet they consistently refuse to present it, making it glaringly obvious that they have no such evidence and that they know it yet persist in falsely claiming that such evidence does exist.
Is that your case? That you really don't have any "other, and more relevant, ways to scrutinize {the supernatural}"? Well then why did you falsely claim that you do? Does this "absolute, universal moral code" of yours, which we know full well prohibits telling falsehoods, not apply in all cases and especially not when a Christian chooses to violate it? How "absolute" is that?
Philosophy! Metaphysics, Ethics, Logic, Philosophy of religion. If you want to categorize my argument into one of these, that's ethics. Dealing with morality!
Would you care to show us some examples from these kinds of studies that confirm the existence of the supernatural or, assuming that it does exist, demonstrate its properties?
Otherwise, your reply is hopelessly vague. I still haven't seen any beef!
The fact that people manage to act morally certainly does not indicate the existence of anything supernatural.
After all, "The metaphysicist has no laboratory."!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Pauline, posted 05-06-2010 9:11 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by AdminPD, posted 05-07-2010 8:04 AM Woodsy has not replied
 Message 307 by Pauline, posted 05-08-2010 11:59 PM Woodsy has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 274 of 477 (559161)
05-07-2010 7:55 AM


Work is going to keep me away from extra activities today. I'll get back to you all, latest by tomorrow.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 275 of 477 (559162)
05-07-2010 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Woodsy
05-07-2010 6:36 AM


Topic Please
To all Participants:
This is a Faith and Belief thread, not a science thread. Participants are not required to provide scientific evidence for their beliefs.
Also if we look back at the opening post, we see that the originator was looking for questions to use in a discussion group.
This thread wasn't so much about Christians having to answer the questions although discussions have popped up on various issues.
Please be respectful of participants belief systems and understand that scientific proof is not required in this forum; so please don't demand it.
Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.
Thank you Purple
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Woodsy, posted 05-07-2010 6:36 AM Woodsy has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 276 of 477 (559167)
05-07-2010 8:39 AM


Back on topic, as requested.
I think the most important question in an apologetics course would be "How do you know that is true?", clearly stated and thoroughly followed up.

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 9:59 AM Woodsy has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 277 of 477 (559168)
05-07-2010 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Pauline
05-06-2010 10:15 PM


Hypothesis, Prediction, Observations
1. Observation: The supernatural itself cannot be physically observed, measured, quantified, or qualified.
Like Sagan's dragon. And unlike the deity described in the Bible.
There's no reason a priori why we can't observe the effects of the supernatural. We can perfectly well imagine a god who constantly sent squads of angels to Earth to go about singing his praises and smiting wrongdoers. We'd notice.
The fact that we live in a universe in which there is no evidence of a god is, then, not because a god is a sort of thing for which there should necessarily be no evidence. Rather, this observation is consistent with the hypothesis that we live in a universe without a god
2. Hypothesis: Since there are no recorded observations, there is no scope for a hypothesis.
Oh yes there is. There's scope for the hypothesis that there is no god, just as our failure to observe unicorns leaves ample scope for the hypothesis that there are no unicorns.
3. Prediction: Can there be one?
Yes. Prediction: we will never make any observations supporting the existence of a god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Pauline, posted 05-06-2010 10:15 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by nwr, posted 05-07-2010 10:41 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 306 by Pauline, posted 05-08-2010 11:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2423 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 278 of 477 (559177)
05-07-2010 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Woodsy
05-07-2010 8:39 AM


Woodsy writes:
I think the most important question in an apologetics course would be "How do you know that is true?", clearly stated and thoroughly followed up
Well, that's the million dollar question isn't it? If just one person could prove beyond a reasonable doubt and without question that their side was right, we wouldn't be here discussing this.
Christians (those that actually care to sit down and read that is) believe that the Bible is true based on evidence. Now, immediately I'm going to get, "show me the evidence" on here. I can't sit down and type out 600 pages (nor would I plagerize authors) on the compounding evidence for Scripture and Christianity. Tons of authors have already done this including Schaeffer and McDowell to name a few. I'm reading "Evidence for Christianity" right now and McDowell makes a compelling case. It's more then enough evidence to hold up in a court of law (unless your the one jurist that just doesn't "believe") There isn't one "gotcha" piece of evidence out there....for either side. There is doubt in evolution also but getting anyone around here to admit that is just shy of a miracle....there is faith involved in science and evolution, such as the "point of singularity" theory, in the sense that the origins of life, from an evolutionary standpoint, CANNOT be hypothesized and reproduced over and over using the scientific method, thus it takes a "step of faith", which always leaves room for doubt.
Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Woodsy, posted 05-07-2010 8:39 AM Woodsy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Huntard, posted 05-07-2010 10:14 AM Flyer75 has replied
 Message 280 by Huntard, posted 05-07-2010 10:14 AM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 281 by PaulK, posted 05-07-2010 10:26 AM Flyer75 has replied
 Message 282 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-07-2010 10:29 AM Flyer75 has replied
 Message 289 by Percy, posted 05-07-2010 10:44 AM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 291 by Huntard, posted 05-07-2010 10:55 AM Flyer75 has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 279 of 477 (559178)
05-07-2010 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 9:59 AM


Flyer, would you mind quoting some of the best pieces of evidence from Mcdowell's book for me please, or provide a link to where I can read it (entirely or excerpts) online? I'd love to give my opinion on it, but I can't seem to find anything from it. I have found a youtibe series called "The Authenticity of the Bible" by Mr. Mcdowell. I'll give you my oppinion in a separate post, with links to the vids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 9:59 AM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 10:40 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 280 of 477 (559179)
05-07-2010 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 9:59 AM


.
Edited by Huntard, : Was double post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 9:59 AM Flyer75 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 281 of 477 (559180)
05-07-2010 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 9:59 AM


Christians who do their research properly instead of relying on apologists with their inevitable bias (which to my mind often shades into dishonesty) would know that the evidence is rather less compelling than you think.
In my experience you should never, ever trust a conservative Christian apologist or you will be deceived. And if you really think that McDowell's case would stand up in a court of law then you have been.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 9:59 AM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 10:31 AM PaulK has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 282 of 477 (559181)
05-07-2010 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 9:59 AM


Well, that's the million dollar question isn't it? If just one person could prove beyond a reasonable doubt and without question that their side was right, we wouldn't be here discussing this.
This assumes that everyone would be both willing to study the proof and able to understand it; and my experience on these forums and elsewhere tells me that there is practically nothing, no matter how perfectly simple and obvious, that people can't manage to either ignore or misunderstand if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Look, here's you managing to misunderstand something utterly simple which must have been explained about a zillion times on this forum:
There is doubt in evolution also but getting anyone around here to admit that is just shy of a miracle....there is faith involved in science and evolution, such as the "point of singularity" theory, in the sense that the origins of life, from an evolutionary standpoint, CANNOT be hypothesized and reproduced over and over using the scientific method, thus it takes a "step of faith", which always leaves room for doubt.
* shakes head *
It's more then enough evidence to hold up in a court of law ...
No. Consider, for example, the whole talking snake question. Can you call any eyewitnesses? OK, how about some material evidence?
It wouldn't get to a court of law. It wouldn't get past a grand jury. It wouldn't get through the DA's office.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 9:59 AM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 10:35 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2423 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 283 of 477 (559182)
05-07-2010 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by PaulK
05-07-2010 10:26 AM


Yes PaulK, his evidence would stand up...why? Because in a court of law you don't have to have a piece of "gotcha" evidence or the smoking gun (although it helps if you do). I testify in court every week and the evidence used to indict somebody or to find somebody guilty rarely has a smoking gun piece of evidence. The "case" is built upon mounds of evidence. I've seen suspects found guilty when the prosecution could never produce the BODY!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by PaulK, posted 05-07-2010 10:26 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-07-2010 10:34 AM Flyer75 has replied
 Message 290 by PaulK, posted 05-07-2010 10:47 AM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 296 by dwise1, posted 05-07-2010 4:39 PM Flyer75 has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 284 of 477 (559183)
05-07-2010 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 10:31 AM


Yes PaulK, his evidence would stand up...why? Because in a court of law you don't have to have a piece of "gotcha" evidence or the smoking gun (although it helps if you do).
You do however need at least one piece of admissible evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 10:31 AM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 10:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2423 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 285 of 477 (559184)
05-07-2010 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Dr Adequate
05-07-2010 10:29 AM


DA,
You are right on the talking snake thing. BUT, if one can prove that things in the NT are true are other parts of the OT that might seem stretchy by natural law standards, then one can believe other parts of the Bible where we just don't have the proof.
And you're shaking your head about the origin of life question....prove it to me then. Can you? With evolution...prove it. You cannot. You will do exactly as I am doing. You will use scientific explanations that we DO KNOW for sure about certain things and extrapolate them to the past and say, "it's logical that this started somehow" but you can't prove it directly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-07-2010 10:29 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by hooah212002, posted 05-07-2010 12:20 PM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 301 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-07-2010 9:22 PM Flyer75 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024