Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1411 of 3694 (902540)
11-25-2022 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1403 by GDR
11-24-2022 8:26 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
GDR writes:
Sure that works great with questions that can be answered by science. It can't for example tell us who we should vote for in an election.
I'll just pick this to reply to as you're dealing with others. Voting is an opinion and a preference, not necessarily based on evidence. At its worst it's an agreement with a dogma. It's rarely if ever a rational process.
Modern historical methodology uses scientific methods. There's a saying amongst historians "never trust anything written as history before the 1950s" because they had little to no objective methodology.
And never trust a theologian to give you history.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1403 by GDR, posted 11-24-2022 8:26 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1426 by GDR, posted 11-25-2022 3:51 PM Tangle has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1412 of 3694 (902549)
11-25-2022 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1409 by PaulK
11-25-2022 12:37 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR seems to be astounded by the fact that many atheists and agnostics know their holy books better than religious people themselves.
GDR refuses to acknowledge or see that believers enter the conversation and study with multitudes of internal biases that color their reading and understanding.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1409 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2022 12:37 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1419 by Phat, posted 11-25-2022 2:26 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1413 of 3694 (902556)
11-25-2022 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1400 by GDR
11-24-2022 6:25 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
GDR writes:
The problem is though, when it comes to things that can't be concluded objectively we look at what information we have, and then subjectively conclude of how strongly we rate the material, and then come to our own conclusions. In many cases, such as the subject of this discussion, we all come to it with a bias which can't help, in spite of our best efforts, to influence our conclusions regardless of how critically we review the material.
I think we need to be careful here.
I'm going to parse some more and discuss further because it's a pet-hobby of mine.
The problem is though, when it comes to things that can't be concluded objectively we look at what information we have, and then subjectively conclude of how strongly we rate the material, and then come to our own conclusions.
I think this is missing a few steps/key-points.
-If the problem is objective, (like... did evolution occur? or is the earth round?) and we cannot make an objective conclusion... the correct course of action is not to make a conclusion as-best-we-can otherwise.
-The correct course of action is to acknowledge that we don't have enough information and conclude that we cannot make a conclusion... wait for more information. Identify that we should wait, and then actually wait. That's the correct course of action and what should be done. Sometimes this is the hardest decision to make.
-Of course, some conclusions are time-sensitive and need to be made before all the information is available
-For these situations, we do have to make a conclusion (or, at least, "a decision") as-best-we-can and hope for the best. In these situations our expectation/risk of being wrong should be increased dramatically
Please note: At no point did I use the term "subjective conclusion." I said to proceed as-best-we-can. That is: we guess. A guess can be subjective if you want to go with your 'gut feeling' on the matter. However, a guess can also be objectively-based if it's an extrapolation of applicable objective data. Both are still guesses. And which one we should go with depends on the situation, the time constraint, the availability and applicability of objective data, the experience and motives of the one making the subjective guess... all sorts of things. An analysis of the situation should be done in order to judge if one should proceed with an objective-based-guess or a subjective-based-guess.
Now, that's all only if the problem is objective. What if the problem is subjective? (Ex: what is my favourite colour? am I feeling happy or sad? what are my feelings in reaction to this or that situation?)
-If the problem is subjective... then objective conclusions should not be used. No one chooses red as their favourite colour because it has the longest wavelength - unless they've already subjectively identified that "whatever the longest wavelength is" will be their favourite colour. The objective conclusion has nothing to do with the subjective question. What makes "longest-wavelength" a "better" favourite colour? It's non-sensical. Subjective conclusion always comes from within. Soul-searching, personal-reflection... whatever you want to call it. Think about your personal priorities/feelings/condition and identify your own answer. You are the be-all-and-end-all-highest-authority on getting this answer "right." Attempting to use objective data to influence a subjective decision only leads to confusion and likely incorrect identification of what your subjective answer actually is.
The power of a subjective answer for a subjective problem is that you actually can be 100% correct if you truthfully reflect on your own priorities/feelings and correctly identify your answer.
Objective answers, even for objective problems, can never be 100% correct as there's always the possibility of us not objectively knowing all the information affecting the situation.
The power of an objective answer, for objective problems, is that they have an incredible track-record of being vastly closer to the truth over subjective answers for objective problems.
So, the process becomes:
1. Identify if the problem itself is subjective vs. objective
2. Based on #1, identify if you should be looking for subjective vs. objective answers.
3. Based on #2, use the best-method-known for identifying the most-likely-to-be-correct answer
-if subjective, reflect and identify
-if objective, use the scientific method or any other evidence/reality based method as much as possible
Many questions become complicated as they are blurred.
Take "who do I want to marry?"
-this involves a heavy subjective side (attraction, happiness...)
-but also involves a heavy objective side (kind, stable, supportive...)
The answers become complicated as one will need to sort through all the subjective/objective sides and use correct subjective/objective methods for each individual area.
Please note: I'm using the word "complicated" and not "difficult" on purpose. Complications themselves come with a level of difficulty... but, really, it's not all that difficult. Just a bit time-consuming to review, differentiate and identify.
In many cases, such as the subject of this discussion, we all come to it with a bias which can't help, in spite of our best efforts, to influence our conclusions regardless of how critically we review the material.
The subject of this discussion is, basically, God's purpose for humans vs our own individual purpose and which is "better" - no?
I see purpose as being a subjective problem.
That is, the answer comes from within, and the only one with the authority to answer a within-question at the highest level is: that person themselves.
Regardless of how knowledgeable or powerful a God may or may not be... His best hope would be to match the answer that the person themselves identifies.
As for judging which purpose is "better" than another purpose...
This again seems extremely subjective.
Which again leads to suggestions of "objective purpose" as a default wrong-answer.
This isn't a personal bias, this is just how objective vs subjective things work.
I'm open to being shown wrong... but it would take describing how "purpose" works differently than I currently think it does and showing that it's accurate in reality.
As an atheist has decided that there is no cosmic intelligence involved in our existence then there can't be any reason to believe it to be historical.
Some atheists decide that, sure.
But to say this as if it implies most atheists do such a thing is pretty incorrect.
In general, being an atheist means you don't believe in God.
However, evidence is usually a pretty big thing to an atheist.
Show evidence that a cosmic intelligence exists... and they'll believe it.
Show evidence that that the resurrection is historical... and they'll believe it.
Without such evidence... they likely will not believe it... but I don't see how that is a "bias" as opposed to just "being reasonable."
The only place I take issue with any of that is that our basic nature is not a fixed point.
I didn't intend to suggest that it was.
My description of our "basic nature" was about the way we are.
Of course, the "way we are" is influenced by many things. Nature (our DNA and genetics) as well as Nurture (our experiences and decisions we make.)
Our DNA doesn't really change. However, as our experiences and the decisions we make change... so will our "basic nature."
My point is that, whatever it is... our basic nature simply "is what it is" at any point in time. It is not defined by what purposes we currently have ongoing in our day-to-day lives, but more defined by the experiences (including our desires/hopes/dreams) we actually go through during our day-to-day lives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1400 by GDR, posted 11-24-2022 6:25 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1423 by Phat, posted 11-25-2022 2:55 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1428 by GDR, posted 11-25-2022 4:52 PM Stile has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1414 of 3694 (902573)
11-25-2022 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1283 by GDR
11-03-2022 6:29 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
About Dr. Richard Carrier:
GDR writes:
As an outspoken atheist Carrier is hardly an impartial source. The wiki page on him says this.
And outspoken evangelicals are impartial sources?
I haven't followed Tangle's argument closely enough to know if he's using this fallacy, but the fallacy in play here is appeal to authority, which is arguments of the sort, "So-and-so-prominent-person agrees with me."
Carrier's approach is to look to the evidence, and that may be why Tangle mentioned him. Carrier's arguments focus on the evidence, or more accurately, the lack thereof that Jesus was a real person rather than an invention of Paul.
I was recently chastised by Percy by referring someone to a book. So that we can share the guilt, I'd suggest reading N T Wright, or John Polkinghorne's "Testing Scripture - A Scientist Explores the Bible"
Bring the arguments into the thread. I've read the latter and found it both obtuse and lacking in even rudimentary scientific rigor.
There were at least a dozen ending with the "Bar Kokhba" revolt in 135AD. Simon bar Kokhba was the last messianic claimant in that era. The point is that revolt, like all of the others ended with the Romans executing the leaders and the movement ending. Jesus is the one exception with the movement actually being invigorated after His execution.
Is the way we know of these other "messiahs", namely through multiple contemporary historical references, the same way we know of Jesus?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1283 by GDR, posted 11-03-2022 6:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1415 by Theodoric, posted 11-25-2022 1:11 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1416 by Theodoric, posted 11-25-2022 1:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1417 by Tangle, posted 11-25-2022 1:31 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1429 by GDR, posted 11-25-2022 5:13 PM Percy has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1415 of 3694 (902579)
11-25-2022 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1414 by Percy
11-25-2022 12:38 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
In looking at the wiki page of Carrier I do not see any mention of impartiality. Could he be stretching the truth again. I am sure GDR did not notice that criticisms of Carrier come from primarily christians.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1414 by Percy, posted 11-25-2022 12:38 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1416 of 3694 (902582)
11-25-2022 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1414 by Percy
11-25-2022 12:38 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Is the way we know of these other "messiahs", namely through multiple contemporary historical references, the same way we know of Jesus?
This is a perfect example of how the historicists move the goalposts. It exposes their deceitfulness and/or their utter ignorance. We know of all these revolts because of historical documentation. Of Jesus Christ? Crickets.
We hear that we should not expect Jesus in the Roman and historical records. But we have all these others in the historical record.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1414 by Percy, posted 11-25-2022 12:38 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1417 of 3694 (902589)
11-25-2022 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1414 by Percy
11-25-2022 12:38 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Percy writes:
I haven't followed Tangle's argument closely enough to know if he's using this fallacy, but the fallacy in play here is appeal to authority, which is arguments of the sort, "So-and-so-prominent-person agrees with me."
Nah. I use Carrier because he's a real historian that argues from the evidence which is fully referenced. His book, 'the Historicity of Jesus' is peer reviewed and published by a respected publisher. He's also as rare as rocking horsed droppings being an atheist writing academically about Christianity. By-and-large, nobody funds that kind of work unlike theologians and bishops who have a free run at it.
"My new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, a publishing house at the University of Sheffield (UK). I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. And Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have approved the text. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well."

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4090

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1414 by Percy, posted 11-25-2022 12:38 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1418 of 3694 (902594)
11-25-2022 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1408 by nwr
11-24-2022 10:22 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
nwr writes:
Some would say that you were actually an atheist. You did not believe in God.

Atheism can be taken to just mean the lack of any belief in God.
I guess that you might say I was a social Christian. I accepted the gospel as such but largely rejected the supernatural. However, it just wasn't anything I thought about much if at all.
I was busy with my job and raising kids.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1408 by nwr, posted 11-24-2022 10:22 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1421 by Phat, posted 11-25-2022 2:37 PM GDR has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1419 of 3694 (902595)
11-25-2022 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1412 by Theodoric
11-25-2022 10:46 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
Theodoric writes:
GDR seems to be astounded by the fact that many atheists and agnostics know their holy books better than religious people themselves.
And yet they don't know Jesus. They claim to be awaiting objective evidence before they would take a leap of Faith, but it appears to me that this is a convenient excuse. Human nature does not want what ringo describes as an alien overlord.
Theodoric writes:
GDR refuses to acknowledge or see that believers enter the conversation and study with multitudes of internal biases that color their reading and understanding.
Granted, many of us became believers based only on an encounter and many more were falsely deluded that they had received such an encounter. Once I knew that my "born again" experience of meeting Jesus (much as Saul/Paul was reported to have experienced on the Road to Damascus) My critically thinking brain
was checkmated. I was forever changed. (ringo scoffs at this, claiming that he too *was* every bit as much of a believer as I am, and thanks to critical thinking he unshackled himself from the delusion of belief) If you are bound and determined to follow the evidence, you likely will not ever become a believer, barring some miracle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1412 by Theodoric, posted 11-25-2022 10:46 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1439 by ringo, posted 11-26-2022 11:54 AM Phat has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1420 of 3694 (902596)
11-25-2022 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1409 by PaulK
11-25-2022 12:37 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
PaulK writes:
Luke has a noticeable difference (actually more than one) from Mark and Matthew. Luke is derived from at least one of those. Therefore the difference in Like is a change. It really isn’t at all hard to see. That it involves replacing an event which did not happen with one that did is evidence that the change was made after the predicted events.
Yes, I agree that Luke was written after Matthew and that Luke would be very familiar with what Matthew wrote. However, Matthew would hardly be the only source. Luke travelled with Paul and also spent time in Jerusalem while with Paul. Luke wouldn't just have used Matthew as a source.
Can you be specific as to what differences you are referring to?
PaulK writes:
I suppose you mean your presumed reference to Isaiah, although it is questionable whether it does come from Isaiah (I think Joel more likely).
Actually I had Daniel 9 in mind.
PaulK writes:
Given the fact that it is not mentioned, and God’s presumed intervention would defeat the Romans at the end I can’t see that as true at all.
He was arguing against the revolution and who else are they going to revolt against. He is essentially saying that as the Babylonians did earlier, the Romans will destroy the Temple.
Paulk writes:
Which rather reinforces the point that it is Jesus who wants the Herodian Temple destroyed.
No. He predicted the destruction of the Temple as a result of a violent revolution. Jesus said that the Temple authorities had turned the Temple into a den of thieves. He wanted reformation not destruction and part of the reformation would be that Gpd resides in the hearts of those who love Him and not is a Building.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1409 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2022 12:37 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1422 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2022 2:55 PM GDR has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1421 of 3694 (902597)
11-25-2022 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1418 by GDR
11-25-2022 2:14 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
GDR writes:
I guess that you might say I was a social Christian. I accepted the gospel as such but largely rejected the supernatural. However, it just wasn't anything I thought about much if at all.
In contrast, it was the supernatural itself (or my perception of "it" ) that cemented my belief. It seems that you are somewhere in the middle of ringo and my argument.
You believe in the message, as he claims to do. He rejects Jesus as a historical figure, seeing him as an Elmer Gantry type of amalgamation. He argues scripture with me because he knows it well, but his only defense as to why he even brings Jesus(as a character in a book) up is because I claim to believe in Him. Most of the EvC peanut gallery is either publically atheist (due to lack of evidence) or secular humanist (since it is the *right* thing to do... )
Being a social Christian, you (who have/has a good loving heart, by the way) believe in an overall message of love and sacrifice. And to be honest, my grumpy and selfish arguments are NOT a good advertisement for Jesus being real.
I'm honest, though. If I ever get smitten, I will have deserved it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1418 by GDR, posted 11-25-2022 2:14 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1433 by GDR, posted 11-25-2022 8:17 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 1422 of 3694 (902602)
11-25-2022 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1420 by GDR
11-25-2022 2:29 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
quote:
Yes, I agree that Luke was written after Matthew and that Luke would be very familiar with what Matthew wrote.
Under your preferred hypothesis the author of Luke directly copied from the Gospel of Matthew.
quote:
Can you be specific as to what differences you are referring to?
What is wrong with the one we’ve been discussing? The signal to flee being changed from pagan worship in the Temple (which would set off a rebellion) to armies surrounding Jerusalem (after things have already started to go badly for the revolt).
quote:
Actually I had Daniel 9 in mind.
Since all the Daniel 9 references in the Olivet Discourse refer to events after the fall of Babylon then you must be wrong. Your Isaiah reference is about the fall of Babylon.
quote:
He was arguing against the revolution and who else are they going to revolt against. He is essentially saying that as the Babylonians did earlier, the Romans will destroy the Temple.

There is no reference to the Babylonian attack in the Olivet Discourse - and even if Jesus were alluding to Isaiah it would be to the fall of Babylon. Even the frame story in Daniel is set during the Exile (and by Daniel 9 Babylon has already fallen).
quote:
No. He predicted the destruction of the Temple as a result of a violent revolution.
In my view - which is consistent with the text - the Temple will be destroyed as part of God’s intervention.
quote:
He wanted reformation not destruction and part of the reformation would be that Gpd resides in the hearts of those who love Him and not is a Building.
Or - more consistent with Daniel - that a new and better Temple with a new priesthood will be established.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1420 by GDR, posted 11-25-2022 2:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1434 by GDR, posted 11-25-2022 8:46 PM PaulK has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1423 of 3694 (902603)
11-25-2022 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1413 by Stile
11-25-2022 11:13 AM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
Stile writes:
-If the problem is objective, (like... did evolution occur? or is the earth round?) and we cannot make an objective conclusion... the correct course of action is not to make a conclusion as-best-we-can otherwise.
This is why I am not nor ever have been a "Biblical Creationist." Frankly, I have no problem with people such as dwise1 who have debated (and debunked) creationists for years. Biblical Creationism is unimportant to me. We are here. How we got here is being uncovered more and more every day.
Stile writes:
-The correct course of action is to acknowledge that we don't have enough information and conclude that we cannot make a conclusion... wait for more information. Identify that we should wait, and then actually wait. That's the correct course of action and what should be done. Sometimes this is the hardest decision to make.
But it is an honest one. You say that you *know* that God does not exist. Coming from you, I respect that conclusion as honestly saying that you don't have enough information. And I have always respected your position. It IS a hard decision to make. My conclusion is that *If* God exists, He surely would understand and never penalize you for it.
Stile writes:
-Of course, some conclusions are time-sensitive and need to be made before all the information is available
And you were thinking of your family and the responsibility that you have in being a role model. You saw organized religion as first of all being hijacked by a conservative (some say spiteful) agenda and wanted your family nowhere near such a circus even if you may have hoped for God to be real. That was a tough decision to be sure.
Stile writes:
-For these situations, we do have to make a conclusion (or, at least, "a decision") as best we can and hope for the best. In these situations, our expectation/risk of being wrong should be increased dramatically
And as I have said before, I believe that God (if God exists) respects our honesty more than He does our allegiance.
Stile writes:
The power of a subjective answer for a subjective problem is that you actually can be 100% correct if you truthfully reflect on your own priorities/feelings and correctly identify your answer.
Objective answers, even for objective problems, can never be 100% correct as there's always the possibility of us not objectively knowing all the information affecting the situation.
Hence agnosticism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1413 by Stile, posted 11-25-2022 11:13 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1460 by Stile, posted 11-28-2022 3:58 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1424 of 3694 (902607)
11-25-2022 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1410 by PaulK
11-25-2022 12:57 AM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
GDR writes:
In many ways I suggest in looking at something like the resurrection of Jesus that I as a theist can look at it more objectively than an atheists can.
PaulK writes:
Since you are rather obviously very strongly biased not only in favour of the resurrection, but in favour of the idea that the evidence must support it, that is a self-serving falsehood. You merely like the idea that you are being objective about it, just as you like the idea that you primarily care about the truth.
The point wasn't about my view. I used the term theists simply as anyone who believes in a higher power but not one of any particular faith group. As a Christian of course I am biased. I believe that the resurrection is an historical event just as you believe it isn't.
PaulK writes:
On the other hand, throwing out much of the Gospel accounts as irrelevant details, or insisting that the participants in a car accident could have no idea where the accident occurred - would be a very clear sign that you weren’t being objective at all. Dismissing evidence that doesn’t suit your conclusion without valid grounds for doing so is undeniable proof of bias.
Firstly I'm not claiming objectivity. I don't throw out much of the Gospels at all. I simply recognize the fact that they were written by fallible human beings and there will be differences in the details.
PaulK writes:
Or, an atheist might simply note that an apparently miraculous event is likely font a miracle at all and would require strong evidence to justify belief. Which would be an objective viewpoint.
Just wondering about miracles. I think we would agree that the Earth was once completely lifeless. Basically dirt in one form or another. Now, out of that dirt we have sentient life. I know we have the evolutionary trail but isn't the fact that life exists fairly strong evidence of a miracle? Yet, many here still deny it.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1410 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2022 12:57 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1425 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2022 3:15 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 1577 by Percy, posted 12-15-2022 7:50 PM GDR has not replied

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


Message 1425 of 3694 (902611)
11-25-2022 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1424 by GDR
11-25-2022 2:58 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
quote:
The point wasn't about my view. I used the term theists simply as anyone who believes in a higher power but not one of any particular faith group. As a Christian of course I am biased. I believe that the resurrection is an historical event just as you believe it isn't.
Which just shows how self-serving the claim is. You are not just a theist - and even if you were the most you can say is that you would assume the resurrection to be more likely than the average atheist. But I don’t think even that can be called objectivity.
If it was not about your view you should have said “a theist” or better “a theist who is not committed to Christianity” not “I, as a theist” which makes it very much about you.
quote:
Firstly I'm not claiming objectivity. I don't throw out much of the Gospels at all. I simply recognize the fact that they were written by fallible human beings and there will be differences in the details.
And by “details” you mean major events like Pentecost.
quote:
Just wondering about miracles. I think we would agree that the Earth was once completely lifeless. Basically dirt in one form or another. Now, out of that dirt we have sentient life. I know we have the evolutionary trail but isn't the fact that life exists fairly strong evidence of a miracle?
No, it definitely is not. We have yet to identify one stage where a miracle would be required. Nor do we have good reason to suppose that a miracle worker would even bother with the long trail, rather than creating everything in a relatively short period of time (a literal reading of Genesis 1 suggests a very short time).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1424 by GDR, posted 11-25-2022 2:58 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