Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 537 of 3694 (897939)
09-16-2022 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 519 by GDR
09-15-2022 6:18 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Yes the scientific findings as you describe them are not subjective conclusions. However, belief or rejection of string theory is a subjective conclusion as the scientific evidence is not conclusive.
There are actually a variety of acceptable terminologies. You could call string theory a theory which is not yet accepted because a consensus has not formed around it. Or you could deem the term "string theory" a misnomer since it is actually just a hypothesis. Or you could say that string theory remains in the realm of the theoretical, which is another way of saying that there's insufficient evidence for a consensus to form.
But again (and again and again), scientific evidence is not conclusive in the sense of timeless truths. When one is trying to be precise from a scientific philosophy standpoint, one would say that the theories constructed around scientific evidence are tentative.
Science and religion are two different forms of knowledge all together. Science answers hard facts.
You keep seeking a wording favorable to your beliefs. The proper way to say this is that science studies the real world, while religion is about spiritual beliefs. There are not two different forms of knowledge. There's just knowledge. You can have knowledge of the physical properties of water, or knowledge of the story of Jesus as told by Mark. They're knowledge of different things, but they're not different forms of knowledge.
Also, since knowledge often bears upon evidence it's worth repeating that science and religion do not both have evidence. Science has evidence, religion does not.
Defining knowledge can be confusing. Do I know what a fire-breathing dragon is? Of course I do. Is there any such thing as a fire-breathing dragon? Of course there isn't. Then how can I know what a fire-breathing dragon is if they don't exist?
Knowledge is most often defined as facts, information, skills, truths or principles. Knowledge of fire-breathing dragons falls under the information category and should more accurately be referred to as knowledge of the fire-breathing dragons of myth, since there are no fire-breathing dragons of reality.
However, science still has to come up with answers, using what science is known to form a subjective opinion.
How many times do I have to say this? I know, I get it, you're short of time and you're drawing many responses, but that doesn't make it okay that your forcing people to remake from scratch arguments they made earlier and that you ignored/didn't have time for.
The process of experimentation, evidence gathering, peer review, publication, replication and consensus is not "subjective opinion." It's as far from "subjective opinion" as humans can get.
And science does not "have to come up with answers" in the way that I think you mean it. What is dark matter? What is dark energy? Can relativity and quantum theory be unified? What is beyond the standard model? Scientists are working hard to develop answers to these questions, and that's all they can do. The answers will come when they come, if ever.
Science has unearthed numerous natural processes. However as that is all that science has discovered, it is a subjective conclusion that there is nothing more.
No, wrong again. One person failing to find non-natural processes is subjective. Two people failing is subjective. Even a thousand people failing is subjective. But 107 billion people have ever lived, and none have ever found evidence of non-natural processes. That's about as objective a finding as you can get.
That's fine, but it is my subjective conclusion that there is more about our existence than natural processes, and one of the things that causes me to believe that is simply that natural processes exist, and we can learn about them.
Your argument is that because natural processes exist that therefore non-natural processes must exist. Why does this make sense to you? Does it also make sense to you that because natural stars exist that non-natural stars must also exist?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by GDR, posted 09-15-2022 6:18 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 568 by GDR, posted 09-19-2022 4:30 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 545 of 3694 (897958)
09-16-2022 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 521 by GDR
09-15-2022 6:39 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
AZPaul3 writes:
That is energy, actual physical photons, and it will obey the commands of the universe.

The commands of the universe. Doesn't a command require an intelligence?
I know AZPaul3 already responded, but seriously?
But given other things you've said, I expect that your position is that photons following the laws of the universe is evidence of non-natural photons, or at least of non-natural somethings. I don't think anyone here follows your logic and finds it opaque.
I think the reason no one can follow your logic is that you're using a circular argument while leaving out one crucial part that would close the circle: you assume the existence of God.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by GDR, posted 09-15-2022 6:39 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 569 by GDR, posted 09-19-2022 4:45 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 548 of 3694 (897962)
09-16-2022 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 546 by GDR
09-16-2022 7:24 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Call it what you like, but we now have conscious sentient life, and in my personal opinion, it is more likely to have come from an intelligent source than a non-intelligent source.
Yes, it's your personal opinion. That was my point. You're supposed to understand that personal opinions are meaningless. There are billions of people out there and all have various numbers of personal opinions not worth discussing.
Views worth discussing are backed by evidence and argument that can be weighed and assessed. You can't just say you have evidence - you have to actually have it.
Your lack of evidence means that your personal opinion that God exists is equal to someone else's personal opinion that the invisible spaghetti monster exists. The reason that belief that gods and spaghetti monsters exist does not come anywhere near in validity to the consensus that the Higgs Boson exists is because of evidence. This simple fact about the importance of evidence is not going to change. Without evidence you are unmoored.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 546 by GDR, posted 09-16-2022 7:24 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 570 by GDR, posted 09-19-2022 5:04 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 554 of 3694 (897975)
09-17-2022 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 550 by GDR
09-16-2022 8:29 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Ya, it was meant to illicit a smile.
You're attaching a smilie to a comment acknowledging that you were wasting people's time? People thought you were serious and responded to that. That smilie belongs at the end of Message 521 so you wouldn't have wasted people's time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by GDR, posted 09-16-2022 8:29 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 557 of 3694 (898096)
09-18-2022 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 555 by GDR
09-17-2022 6:07 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
Wikipedia on Richard Bauckham:
This is against the scholarly consensus that the four gospels were written later and not via interviews with direct eyewitnesses, but were rather the result of a longer chain of transmission of stories of Jesus filtered through early Christian communities over time.
So much for eyewitnesses.
That is actually changing...<etc. and so forth for a couple paragraphs...>
No, the consensus isn't changing. It can only change if new evidence of eyewitnesses comes to light. Without that you've just got endless discussion of different viewpoints, which has been the situation for centuries.
However, neither of us will convince the other and it is entirely off topic anyway.
But the fact remains that you have no evidence. You can't convince me of anything without evidence. And I've already convinced you that you have no evidence. You've conceded the point a number of times.
Percy writes:
History records a great deal about Simon bar Giora, but of Jesus, nothing.
Well ya, bar Giora led a revolt that had some early success but ultimately wound up with the Romans destroying Jerusalem and the Temple. Jesus' idea of revolution didn't involve violence. It wouldn't be seen as noteworthy at the time.
So miracles and resurrections aren't noteworthy in 30 AD, but by 100 AD they are? You're actually describing the exact process of mythology where the details grow over time. Your own critical thinking should come into play and recognize that Papias's and Polycarp's claims of interviewing eyewitnessesn more than 70 years after the events is unlikely in the extreme. Why doesn't it?
Percy writes:
Paul, an itinerant preacher who founded churches in the Jewish diaspora, created the religion that eventually became Christianity. There is no way of knowing whether he based Jesus upon a real person, a composite of real persons, or made him up out of whole cloth, but that the gospels are works of fiction, just like the Bhagavad Gita, the Quran and the Book of Mormon, there can be no doubt.

If you say so. There are numerous very bright, very well educated people in this world who would disagree, but you claim there is no doubt.
But you agree with me that all these books are works of fiction, except for one. You're just like all atheists, except that you disagree with them about one religion.
Percy writes:
The writings that did survive until today are the testimonies of the early Christian churches of the Jewish diaspora which had never had any contact with Jesus and had no reliable source of information about him.
We simply disagree, and I can present nothing that you won't dispute.
Are you sure we disagree? I'm sure we both believe the gospels were produced by the early Christian churches that Paul founded in the Jewish diaspora. And that they couldn't have had any contact with Jesus since Paul didn't start founding churches until after Jesus's death. And that their only source of information was secondhand.
It is not a case that I'm disputing everything you claim. I'm just pointing out that you're making very exaggerated claims about having evidence.
You can't seem to decide whether you have evidence or not. You concede you have no evidence until someone challenges a cherished belief, such as that Jesus existed, and then suddenly you're arguing again that you do too have evidence. You don't. If there were real evidence then most people would accept Christianity and the other religions would be poor shadows of their current selves.
Why is it so important to you that your faith have evidence? If it had evidence would it still be faith?
Your search for evidence reminds me of a 1972 book by Irving Wallace called The Word about the discovery of the Gospel of James, brother of Jesus. Researchers authenticate it and the entire world converts to Christianity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by GDR, posted 09-17-2022 6:07 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by Phat, posted 09-18-2022 6:11 PM Percy has replied
 Message 580 by GDR, posted 09-21-2022 4:18 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 559 of 3694 (898109)
09-19-2022 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 558 by Phat
09-18-2022 6:11 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Phat writes:
If they actually found objective evidence that Jesus existed, there would still be many people refusing to accept Him. Even if they validated that he lived after the crucifixion.
If conclusive evidence were uncovered that Jesus not only existed but that the events recorded in the gospels really happened, including the resurrection, then the only people denying it would be flat-earther/heliocentrism-denier types.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by Phat, posted 09-18-2022 6:11 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 599 of 3694 (898338)
09-22-2022 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 561 by GDR
09-19-2022 1:44 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Frankly, I don't see that I am having difficulties except I am having to discuss this with multiple individuals and it takes time which I don't always have. How about being just a tad reasonable.
Ignore an argument once and most people will probably chalk it up to just the way things go. Ignore it again and most people will probably figure the fault was with them, that maybe they didn't make their point clearly enough. But ignore arguments time and again and it's going to get noticed. You're making a career of it, forcing people to repeat the same arguments over and over.
If you don't think that I have a place on your forum , then tell me and I'll disappear. Not every post requires a response.
True, there's no need to respond to every post, but of those deserving of a response, merely posting a response is not what's key (though it's worth noting that you've replied to 66% of messages posted to you). What's most important is addressing the key points, and even that's not important unless you repeatedly ignore the same points. A variant on this is responding to key point, but then raising the issue again as if it had never been discussed before. While you've replied to almost all of my posts, key points get ignored, and you keep raising issues already discussed as if they've never been discussed before.
You must be sensing some hostility because you ask if you "have a place on your forum." But I don't think there's any hostility. I very much doubt anyone wants you to leave. It might feel like hostility to you, but from my end it feels like people expressing frustration. For example, you go on to say:
The only evidence that you and others allow is scientific evidence.
We've been over this many times, and it's frustrating to have to go over this yet again. There's only one way way to know things, and that's through evidence gathered through observation using the five senses. Scientific evidence is no different from other evidence except that's its gathering has been formalized and instrumented and calibrated and so forth, and scientific conclusions can only be drawn after sufficient replication to form a consensus.
If you think there are other ways of knowing things that don't involve observing the material world, ways that aren't just as friendly toward (for example) Buddhism as they are toward Christianity (in other words, ways of knowing things that lend legitimacy to your belief that Christianity has more legitimacy than other religions), then it's incumbent upon you to explain it to us in ways that aren't full of woo.
I have agreed there is no scientific evidence but we can draw subjective conclusions from what we observe about the world and our existence. None of you accept that. I get it.
But your subjective conclusions about Christianity are just as valid as other people's about ghosts and UFOs. That's what happens when evidence is absent.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by GDR, posted 09-19-2022 1:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 625 by GDR, posted 09-23-2022 7:36 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 600 of 3694 (898340)
09-22-2022 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 562 by GDR
09-19-2022 2:02 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
The point IMHO to that we have hearts that love sacrificially which is not dependent on any particular spiritual belief. However, I contend from my own experience that spiritual belief can help to move hearts in that direction. IMHO Christianity provides me with faith that this world does give us meaning and purpose in that life matters, and good stewardship of the world matters, well beyond the idea of being in good with God when we die. If we are only looking to make things netter for ourselves in this life or the next then we have missed the point.
Repeating what you just said more generally, religious beliefs of every sway have lent peace and comfort to many of all generations throughout time. How is that in any way convincing that there are legitimate reasons for accepting the reality of what you (or anyone) believes spiritually?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by GDR, posted 09-19-2022 2:02 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 601 by AZPaul3, posted 09-22-2022 3:04 PM Percy has replied
 Message 626 by GDR, posted 09-23-2022 7:40 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 610 of 3694 (898382)
09-23-2022 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 601 by AZPaul3
09-22-2022 3:04 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
AZPaul3 writes:
Isn’t the number of faithful happy believers the evidence for god? It is a solid number that can be scientifically determined. So there is scientific evidence for GDR’s god, yes?
I'm not sure whether you're being serious or facetious. How is what someone believes exists, whether it's unicorns or Thor or the Christian God, evidence that it does actually exist? How could baseless unevidenced beliefs ever be evidence of anything real?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 601 by AZPaul3, posted 09-22-2022 3:04 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 611 by Phat, posted 09-23-2022 9:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 612 by AZPaul3, posted 09-23-2022 10:29 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 614 of 3694 (898404)
09-23-2022 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 566 by GDR
09-19-2022 3:48 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
If there were evidence in what you've read then you would present it here.
Arguing that, "Some very smart guys believe this," is easily countered with, "Some very smart guys don't believe this." We've been over this time and again. Why are you raising this issue yet again?
If you've got evidence, present it. If you don't have evidence, if all you can do is continually cycle through all your unevidenced arguments, then you don't really have anything.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 566 by GDR, posted 09-19-2022 3:48 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 634 of 3694 (898450)
09-24-2022 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 568 by GDR
09-19-2022 4:30 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
There are actually a variety of acceptable terminologies. You could call string theory a theory which is not yet accepted because a consensus has not formed around it. Or you could deem the term "string theory" a misnomer since it is actually just a hypothesis. Or you could say that string theory remains in the realm of the theoretical, which is another way of saying that there's insufficient evidence for a consensus to form.
Well then Christianity is theoretical as there is not sufficient consensus as there is insufficient evidence to allow a consensus to be formed. As some scientists believe string theory to be accurate many theologians believe that basic Christianity represents accurately the the nature of a deity.
When you have evidence, replication and analysis sufficient to form a consensus, then you have a theory.
When you have a little evidence then you can form a hypothesis around which to organize additional study.
When you have no evidence then you have religion.
Percy writes:
You keep seeking a wording favorable to your beliefs. The proper way to say this is that science studies the real world, while religion is about spiritual beliefs. There are not two different forms of knowledge. There's just knowledge. You can have knowledge of the physical properties of water, or knowledge of the story of Jesus as told by Mark. They're knowledge of different things, but they're not different forms of knowledge.
Sure I'm fine with that. They are looking for different answers. One is to discover material properties and how things work and the other is belief about why things are the way they are.
Yes, exactly. On the one hand we have evidence of the real world that potentially leads to theory, and on the other hand we have unevidenced belief. No religion has ever proceeded through a scientific process of observation, evidence gathering, analysis, replication, consensus and theory.
And no one is asking religion to do this. But sometimes religion makes the claim, "We have evidence just as good as scientific evidence," and in such case the falsity of this claim has to pointed out. It's nothing against religion. It's about not allowing a false claim to stand unchallenged.
Of course all religions are encouraged to shout their beliefs from the pulpits, and in such venues they can make whatever claims of evidence they like. But this isn't church, so any requests that EvC give your claims religious deference are not appropriate.
Percy writes:
Defining knowledge can be confusing. Do I know what a fire-breathing dragon is? Of course I do. Is there any such thing as a fire-breathing dragon? Of course there isn't. Then how can I know what a fire-breathing dragon is if they don't exist?
Sure, but if a very large percentage of the population believed that fire breathing dragons existed, then maybe it would be worth considering.
It is human nature to respond to the opinions of large constituencies, but belief of one person or a billion would not create an iota of evidence for fire-breathing dragons. There would remain zero evidence.
Percy writes:
How many times do I have to say this? I know, I get it, you're short of time and you're drawing many responses, but that doesn't make it okay that your forcing people to remake from scratch arguments they made earlier and that you ignored/didn't have time for.
Not every post requires a response. If you have followed what I've responded to I go through them in order. Some posts though are simply comments or simple "put downs" that don't call for an account. Or in a couple of cases there are those who claim I'm lying and so I'm not interested in maintaining a discussion with them.
You're missing the central point. Please stop using claims of lack of time and many responses as an excuse to ignore the substantive part of people's arguments, forcing them to say the same thing over and over again. Like now.
Percy writes:
No, wrong again. One person failing to find non-natural processes is subjective. Two people failing is subjective. Even a thousand people failing is subjective. But 107 billion people have ever lived, and none have ever found evidence of non-natural processes. That's about as objective a finding as you can get.
Well, I'd suggest that there are numerous things that can be observed for which we can't absolutely say as to whether they are just nothing but absolute processes or not. As I said earlier we can roll a die that comes up 3. WE can absolutely know that it is a 3, (and personally I do believe that 3 is the result of nothing but natural processes), but we can't claim absolutely that there wasn't divine interference.
There are probably few things one can claim absolutely, but is that really to be your claim: "Christianity: no evidence absolutely proving it wrong, therefore probably true." If so then once again you're on the same level of credibility as fire-breathing dragons.
Maybe science will ultimately discover a process that will tell us how abiogenesis occurred. However we won't know if there was outside interference or not.
This warrants the same comment, but I'll rephrase it: we can never know anything about that with no evidence. For every unevidenced religious claim you want to make there are equally unevidenced non-religious claims. If you claim a divine influence, then I claim an invisible spaghetti monster. Or a herd of microscopic elephants. Or a statistically anomalous scientific event. Or the spirit of sea serpents on Pluto. Or hidden powers of dark matter. Or "an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato."
Percy writes:

Your argument is that because natural processes exist that therefore non-natural processes must exist. Why does this make sense to you?
I have not said that non-natural processes must exist. I do maintain that the fact that natural processes exist, implies a designer.
But your designer is non-natural , so I was precisely accurate about you believing that the existence of natural processes implies that non-natural processes must also exist. Again, if there is any chain of logic leading from your premise to your conclusion, it is not apparent.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by GDR, posted 09-19-2022 4:30 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 635 of 3694 (898452)
09-24-2022 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 570 by GDR
09-19-2022 5:04 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
Your lack of evidence means that your personal opinion that God exists is equal to someone else's personal opinion that the invisible spaghetti monster exists. The reason that belief that gods and spaghetti monsters exist does not come anywhere near in validity to the consensus that the Higgs Boson exists is because of evidence. This simple fact about the importance of evidence is not going to change. Without evidence you are unmoored.

You are expressing your personal opinion.
You're being idiotic and purposefully obtuse. Nothing I say about the current consensus within science is my personal opinion. For example, it is a fact that a scientific consensus has formed around the existence of the Higgs Boson because the statistical data passed the 5-sigma threshold, which means there's only a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the data is leading us astray.
Particle studies tend to be statistical, but other realms of science are more direct, for example, that the triple point of H2O is 32°F at a pressure of .006 atmospheres.
Your evidence is that you can observe or have evidence for natural processes. I don't argue against natural processes. However, it is simply your personal opinion, as I understand it, is that these natural processes are only the result of chance, and maybe you are right. However, scientifically we cannot say that the natural causes are not the result of pre-existing intelligence or even if there is inference in the processes from such an intelligence.
You've shifted the discussion to an area where I've made no comment, namely the origin of the laws of the universe. If you've got evidence for the "Let there be light" version, please present it. Until you do the rest of us will continue to seek evidence for what happened.
But my actual point, one I apparently have to keep making as you make every effort to shift the conversion or make up alternative interpretations, is that things that happen leave evidence behind of what happened and how they happened. You're claiming that part of the cause of what happened is non-natural, but everywhere we look natural processes account for 100% of what happened. There's no missing 1% into which the divine could fit.
It is all personal opinion based on what we as individuals experience and observe.
I assume this is still about what resulted in the natural processes we observe in the universe today. You have no experience or observations about this, while science continues to gather evidence hoping answers emerge. As far as I know we still cannot answer the question, "Why are these physical laws the laws of our universe and not some other laws?"
Incidentally. this thread has hardly ever related to my point in starting this thread which was simply to make the point that it isn't the name of the deity or the religion that is important but the understanding of the nature of a deity and what it means to how we conduct our lives that matters, in response to the question of which god do you choose.
I wouldn't say it this way because your way of saying it implies certain things that I don't believe are true, but I agree with the sentiments.
By the way, notice how long it's taking me to reply. I'm in a bit of a busy period. I'm replying as I have time, and I'm not ignoring a single thing you say. Obviously it can be done.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by GDR, posted 09-19-2022 5:04 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 636 of 3694 (898453)
09-24-2022 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 573 by GDR
09-19-2022 8:30 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Paulk writes:
Because you don’t care about the truth, only about propping up your personal belief,
I care very much about the truth, and like you and everyone else here we keep propping up our own beliefs.
You're not being honest with yourself. You don't care about truth. You only care about finding ways to validate what you already believe true.
No one else here is propping up their own beliefs. They're seeking to accept the nature of the world as described by what they observe.
PaulK writes:
Obviously this sort of thinking leads to an infinite regress. And it seems obvious to me that evolution is a more likely cause of intelligence than anything you might propose for your assumed “cosmic intelligence” - and that can be backed by at least some evidence.

Evolution, without an external intelligence itself leads to an infinite regress of processes.
How so? I don't think you have an inkling of what you just said means.
Evolution occurs through the same mundane natural processes we observe going on around us all the time. There is no "infinite regress of processes."
You can observe and learn a lot about how evolution happened. What is the evidence though, that there can't be an external intelligence behind the natural processes?
Over and over again, the same question. Why can you never say, "Now I know, since I've asked this question before, that your answer is <summarize answer>, but I would go on to argue that <say something that moves the discussion forward>."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 573 by GDR, posted 09-19-2022 8:30 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 638 by nwr, posted 09-24-2022 10:50 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 637 of 3694 (898454)
09-24-2022 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 575 by GDR
09-20-2022 2:46 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
The writings that did survive until today are the testimonies of the early Christian churches of the Jewish diaspora which had never had any contact with Jesus and had no reliable source of information about him.
GDR writes:
AZPaul3 writes:
You can’t disagree. Percy did not voice an opinion. He stated a known fact.
Nonsense. It is not a known fact.
No, that is incorrect, it is pretty much a known fact. What I said was:
Percy in Message 528 writes:
The writings that did survive until today are the testimonies of the early Christian churches of the Jewish diaspora which had never had any contact with Jesus and had no reliable source of information about him.
Aren't the writings we have today from the early Christian churches formed by Paul in the Jewish diaspora? Didn't these churches have no contact with Jesus, since he was already dead by the time Paul founded them? Didn't they therefore have no reliable source of information about him?
Richard Bauckham as I have pointed out in other posts goes through in his 600 plus page book, (which I have read) "Jesus and the eyewitnesses" and claims otherwise.
It doesn't matter how many books Richard Bauckham writes. He has no evidence to contradict what I said. Stop giving us reading assignments. If you think there's evidence in Bauckman's books then its incumbent on you to bring it into the thread. It's not our job to read your references looking for the evidence you claim is there. This is a discussion board, not a jousting competition between links.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by GDR, posted 09-20-2022 2:46 AM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 639 by Theodoric, posted 09-24-2022 10:55 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 641 of 3694 (898460)
09-24-2022 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 580 by GDR
09-21-2022 4:18 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
No, the consensus isn't changing. It can only change if new evidence of eyewitnesses comes to light. Without that you've just got endless discussion of different viewpoints, which has been the situation for centuries.

Actually there are a variety of reasons. Firstly the Christian scholars up until recently were heavily influenced by the form critics who completely discounted the early church fathers. Now Christian studies are taking those works seriously.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have been very helpful in providing context and a better understanding of the language including the idioms.

Things like the excavation of Pompeii is providing a much clearer picture of the Roman world of the 1st century.

Scholarship is moving away from regarding the Bible as directly authored by God.

The internet is making the data universally available and also allows scholars access to the work of others and allows them to communicate much more easily.
Yes, of course scholarship in the field of Biblical studies continues, but we were talking about eyewitnesses. Nowhere do you say anything about evidence of eyewitnesses. This is so typical. I make a point about one thing, you reply on something entirely different.
If you've got anything to say about a changing consensus on eyewitnesses due to new evidence then now would be the time to say it, since that was the topic, and in your own quote of me I'm clearly talking about eyewitnesses.
Percy writes:
So miracles and resurrections aren't noteworthy in 30 AD, but by 100 AD they are? You're actually describing the exact process of mythology where the details grow over time. Your own critical thinking should come into play and recognize that Papias's and Polycarp's claims of interviewing eyewitnessesn more than 70 years after the events is unlikely in the extreme. Why doesn't it?

Papias was likely earlier than that...
Why do you say that? Do you have any rationale or evidence to support this?
...but we can't be sure one way or the other.
Your unevidenced assertion can be ignored in the face of the well argued points made in the Wikipedia article and elsewhere on the Internet.
You however are completely disregarding all that was written about Jesus in the NT.
Pretty much. And you're ignoring that the increasing detail with time is a key indicator of myth.
Percy writes:
Are you sure we disagree? I'm sure we both believe the gospels were produced by the early Christian churches that Paul founded in the Jewish diaspora. And that they couldn't have had any contact with Jesus since Paul didn't start founding churches until after Jesus's death. And that their only source of information was secondhand.

No, I don't agree.
I realize that currently my belief runs contrary to the teaching of the majority of seminaries. However I contend, that based on both internal evidence that the Gospels were authored by eye witnesses or those with contact with eyewitnesses.
So make your case. Merely stating that you disagree carries no weight. Why are you arguing this way? Why do so many of your positions begin and end with, "I disagree."
There's an obvious answer, of course. You can't say anything more than, "I disagree," because you have no evidence.
After reading a considerable amount on the subject, here is a summary of that belief.
I don't want a summary of belief. I want the evidence. Which you don't have. As you've conceded.
Percy writes:
Why is it so important to you that your faith have evidence? If it had evidence would it still be faith?
There is zero scientific evidence so I am left with the ancient texts and what I have observed from my life and from the world around me. Actually the science that I have read by people like Brian Greene etc, have helped convince me that I am on the right track.
That's personal belief. A lot of people here have also read Brian Greene and not seen anything that lends support to any of your beliefs.
However I can't know that what I believe is fact so it boils down to faith.
Well, yes, precisely. Aren't we done now?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by GDR, posted 09-21-2022 4:18 PM GDR 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