|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation, Evolution, and faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: It appears that it isn't a basis for faith AT ALL. In fact your whole argument seems to have been nothing more than a series of dubious rationalisations - in fact a demonstration of my point.
quote: In other words the main use - or rather abuse - of reason is to generate rationalisations to prop up belief. That is a quite a way from the way reason is used in science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: This is what Creationists want you to believe. THe fact is that the flood was refuted because the evidence was strongly against it and millions of years was accepted because the evidence was strongly for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: In other words you start with the assumption that creationists must be right and you don't even look at the evidence in anything more than a superficial way. But in fact you are wrong. The flood FAILS to adequately explain the geological and fossil record.
quote: No there have not been major flaws. None that would invalidate the methods used at all.
quote: Again that is false. We can look for conditions that would change decay rates - none relevant have been found. We can look for the consequences of changing decay rates - none have been found. We can use astronomical evidence to see if there is evidence of differing decay rates, and none has been found. Of course creationists are unlikely to let you know these facts because they want you to dismiss the evidence.
quote: In fact there have been multiple ice ages - creationists only admit to one (again going against the evidence). And we know that they haven't affected the relevant dating methods because we have a scientific understanding of these events. Once again we see science resting on the evidence and creationism desperately trying to dismiss the evidence - in the name of faith. That is the difference. Science is based on evidence and creationism is based on dogma.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Now maybe you actually believe this, but if you do it is despite the evidence that you yourself have produced. In other words it is an example of blind faith. Your arguments abuse definitions and pretend that there is reasoning where there is none. In fact your faith is so blind that you could not even admit that there was no example of reasoning in Acts 17 even though you could not point to one. It's really simple - if you believe your own arguments you are living proof that you are wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: The mere mention of alleged evidence seems to fall short of actual reasoning. The actual reasoning would be an explanation of how the "evidence" supports the conclusions.But really there is no serious argument in Acts 17 and no rational way you could have come to the conclusion that there was. quote: I realise that to the apologetic mindset the "proper" argument is the one that supports the desired conclusion. However by a more rational argument your statement is another falsehood. Your argument is "my preferred definition of the word faith includes the use of reason and evidence therefore there is reason and evidence supporting religious faith". But this is clearly fallacious reasoning. The correct way to establish that would be to show thee evidence and reasoning - and the very fact that you avoid that is clear evidence that you are at some level aware of the falsity of your views. There is much more evidence of the evasive and selective nature of your arguments - and the fact that you have managed to present no rational case. You would have done far better to keep your silence instead of providing such compelling proof of the blindness of your faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: But not to resolve basic matters of faith. The most you will find there is apologetics - often deceptive or fallacious - intended to prop up faith with the illusion of reason. To the extent that reasoning is correctly deployed it is used to argue over lesser points, with the major issues all assumed from the start.
quote: On the contrary, because the evidence is staring us all in the face. Your posts are there for everyone to read, and their slippery and evasive nature is visible to everyone. You are arguing like a creationist, determined to "prove" that you are correct, no matter what the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I'll agree that McDowell is famous, however his status is not due to the quality of his arguments. Like Strobel his claims to have been an atheist convinced by reason seem to be nothing more than a much-loved myth.
quote: And your saying so is a demonstration of blind faith. Of course it isn't true, and it is obviously not true. Yet you think that you should believe it simply because it is in the Bible. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And plenty to contradict other parts.
quote: Except that there are NO convincing examples of fulfilled prophecies from the Bible. There are quite a few failed prophecies, though.
quote: You will note that the page you link to does not claim that Pilate's existence was doubted. Instead it lists evidence that was already known that he DID exist (most notably Philo). Do you have any evidence that this evidence was ignored ? Because there seems to be real reasons to doubt it.
quote:No, you won't find any such thing. You will find a claim that there WERE such letters, but they have not been found. (The "Acts of Pilate" we have today are known to be a forgery).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: One of many that falsely make that claim. The quality of his arguments says otherwise. I'm surprised that you haven't heard of Strobel, his Case For.. series of books seem to be quite popular.
quote: I'm aware of much of the archeological evidence and it does very little to validate the religious claims of the Bible. It's not difficult to get a few things right. On the other hand - to name a few examples, we can be pretty sure that there was no literal Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood didn't happen, the Babel story is a myth and that if the Exodus had any basis in fact at all it was a much smaller event. I have to say that apologetics are one of the most convincing arguments against Christianity. The falsehoods and the open displays of bias and illogic show a desperate need for support that isn't there. Much of it is so phony that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the whole religion is phony, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Except that THAT letter doesn't confirm that Jesus was crucified. The original letter from Pilate if it existed would. Personally I don't think that it did.
quote: I realise that you have been fooled into thinking that there are good arguments because of your personal bias. But bias is not logic. The arguments presented by apologists are often objectively bad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And all I am doing is pointing out that the real situation might be that you have decent evidence for A, weak circumstantial evidence for B and your "evidence" for C is based on falsehoods or even lies. And on top of that the jump from A, B and C to X, Y and Z is likely to be invalid to say the least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: That's stretching the truth somewhat. The Quran claims to be the literal word of God, but the Bible does not. There are sections of the texts where the author claims to be relaying God's work, and there's that one vague reference to "inspiration" (which is unclear on the meaning and even which texts it refers to), but there is nothing that even clearly covers the whole of the Bible as we have it today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I am perfectly aware of that. I was simply pointing out the fact that the Quran DID claim to be the word of God, unlike the Bible.
quote: Then you should have considered more carefully. I would have been more than happy if each book of the Bible had made such a claim. But in fact NONE of them do. Even a claim in one book that covered the entire Bible would have been adequate. If it had unambiguously identified those books as the word of God. 2 Timothey 3:16 does neither.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Aside from the fact that conservative Christians are often wrong about what the Bible says this IS clearly different. Nobody in science would take a book as the final word.
quote: Some people say so, but that itself is a theological claim. And a strong faith commitment is required to make it. So really you are emphasising the differences between science and religion here, and showing that your religion starts with far more faith than science requires.
quote: Given how little positive suppport for the religious claims these offer - and the much greater evidence against the reliability of parts of the Bible - this cannot be seen as showing that Christianity has much of a basis in evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Which is a false analogy, unless you reduce religion to literary criticism.
quote: You are leaving out a lot here. For a start, as soon as you go beyond "the Bible says" to claiming that what it says is true you are invoking faith. And then again, on the liberal side you have many Christians who do not accept that the Bible is absolutely authoritative, dismissing the parts of it that do not agree with their theology. On the conservative side you have many Christians who do exactly the same thing, but can't even admit it. Worse, the conservatives are often hostile to Bible scholarship, which should be an essential part of any serious study of the book. So, all you are trying to do is to create a false equivalence by taking a very selective view of reality. Which again demonstrates the difference between the apologetic mindset and the scientific.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024