Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Method of Madness: post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 226 of 253 (119966)
06-29-2004 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Hangdawg13
06-28-2004 12:55 PM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
quote:
You have never accepted anything on faith? When you go to the mechanic to have your car fixed and he says you need a new transmission, do you say, I don't believe you unless you take it out and show me how it works and what's wrong with it.
Interestingly, in this state the car owner has the legal right to examine and take home any part that the mechanic says needs replacing, so the car owner doesn't have to take the mechanic's word for it, this discouraging the mechanic from replacing or "fixing" things that dodn't need to be.
Anyway, what you are talking about is trust, not faith. I have a great deal of information at my disposal before I decide to trust that this mechanic knows what he or she is doing and is treating me correctly.
Any disinterested observer can also observe the mechanic, the car, etc., and determine a great deal about the situation.
You, however, are the only one who can say what God says to you and does for you. There can be no disintersted observer in your faith situation.
However, a disinterested observer does need these things to determine reality.
quote:
Then why do so many people when presented with the gospel for the first time immediately believe?
Are you sure this really happens?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-28-2004 12:55 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-30-2004 1:12 AM nator has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 227 of 253 (120224)
06-30-2004 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by nator
06-29-2004 11:31 AM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
Are you sure this really happens?
Ever talk to a missionary?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by nator, posted 06-29-2004 11:31 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by nator, posted 07-01-2004 10:03 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 228 of 253 (120228)
06-30-2004 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by nator
06-29-2004 11:20 AM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
Like what?
Please be specific.
There are over 300 prophecies fulfilled by Jesus alone. Come on, do your homework.
I gave one example of a pointer in a previous thread:
Genesis 5 geneology:
Adam -------- man
Seth -------- appointed
Enosh ------- mortal
Kenan ------- sorrow;
Mahalalel --- the blessed God
Jared ------- Shall come down
Enoch ------- Teaching
Methuselah -- His death shall bring
Lamech ------ The despairing
Noah -------- rest or comfort
Man [is] appointed mortal sorrow; [but] the blessed God shall come down teaching [that] His death shall bring [the] despairing rest.
What are the odds that the very first geneology recorded in the Bible by Moses would contain the names whose meanings form one sentence containing the gospel of Christ?
This topic is not about why I believe.
We were talking about my supposed post-hoc or confirmation bias or other logic flaws in my explanations of suffering and God's character. Please address my arguments in the previous posts about God's character before we get sidetracked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by nator, posted 06-29-2004 11:20 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by nator, posted 07-01-2004 10:25 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 229 of 253 (120737)
07-01-2004 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Hangdawg13
06-30-2004 1:12 AM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
quote:
Ever talk to a missionary?
Why should I trust what a missionary thinks is happening?
Don't you think that they might just believe what they want to believe about the people they are trying to convert?
Oh, and yes, I have spoken to several missionaries and they always get tired of me before I get tired of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-30-2004 1:12 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 230 of 253 (120753)
07-01-2004 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Hangdawg13
06-30-2004 1:25 AM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
quote:
There are over 300 prophecies fulfilled by Jesus alone. Come on, do your homework.
LOL!
I know the bible says Jesus fulfilled prophecy, but I am talking about clear, unambiguous fulfilled prophecy with evidence from multiple sources to confim it.
You can't use the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true.
That's circular reasoning.
quote:
What are the odds that the very first geneology recorded in the Bible by Moses would contain the names whose meanings form one sentence containing the gospel of Christ?
Oh, come on, you haven't fallen for those Junior High spooky-spooky "what are the odds?!" fallacies, have you?
First of all, those translations don't form a sentence.
You had to insert words to make it a sentence.
Second, are all of these translations of names agreed upon as most accurate, or have they been selected to make more sense in a sentence?
Third, since we have no evidence at all that any of these people existed, the "hidden" message could have been a symbolic, literary device.
Fourth, why do you cut off the last verse of Gen 5, in which Noah's offspring Shem, Ham, and Japeth are listed? What do their names translate to mean, and do those translations fit into the "sentence"?
quote:
Man [is] appointed mortal sorrow; [but] the blessed God shall come down teaching [that] His death shall bring [the] despairing rest.
Does this sentence also form a grammatical sentence in ancienct Hebrew?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-01-2004 09:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-30-2004 1:25 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-01-2004 2:08 PM nator has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 231 of 253 (120847)
07-01-2004 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by nator
07-01-2004 10:25 AM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
STILL no comment on my 3 very good arguments about God's character? Sigh... I guess you concede that I am right then... haha
First of all, those translations don't form a sentence.
You had to insert words to make it a sentence.
The Hebrew is a very precise language. They say in 5 words what we say in 10 and have more meaning in it than we do.
It still makes sense even without the added words although saying it in english without the added words is a bit awkward. English translations are filled with added words to try to convey the full meaning of it in Hebrew.
Second, are all of these translations of names agreed upon as most accurate, or have they been selected to make more sense in a sentence?
Sure look up their roots and you will get the same thing. Several of the names are already explained in the context.
Adam obviously translates man.
Eve gave birth to Seth saying: God has appointed me a son. Noah's name was explained by Lamech who said: He will give us rest in labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed (also a prophecy of Christ). Some of the others are explained elsewhere like Methuselah: "His death shall bring" the flood.
So in the geneology you have Christ's first coming:
Man is appointed mortal sorrow; but the blessed God shall come down teaching that His death shall bring the despairing rest.
In the last sentence of the geneology you have Christ's second coming when he will bring perfect environment when the curse or bondage of decay as its called is removed.
He will give us rest in labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.
Third, since we have no evidence at all that any of these people existed, the "hidden" message could have been a symbolic, literary device.
So you think Moses made the names lifespans and whole story up to fool us into believing in the Messiah that had not yet come? Actually Moses only set in writting the oral history. If people's retelling of these stories were just "myths" as you say they were then why do they perfectly describe by chance the purpose of Christs 1st and 2nd coming?
Junior High spooky-spooky "what are the odds?!" fallacies, have you?
Well I haven't taken statistics yet (get that next semester) could you please tell me the odds?
Fourth, why do you cut off the last verse of Gen 5, in which Noah's offspring Shem, Ham, and Japeth are listed? What do their names translate to mean, and do those translations fit into the "sentence"?
Because the geneology is interrupted by the flood.
Does this sentence also form a grammatical sentence in ancienct Hebrew?
Yep.
You can't use the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true.
That's circular reasoning.
Correct. But you can use the Bible to prove it's divinely inspired by prophecy that shows it is an "integrated message system from outside our time domain".
This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 07-01-2004 01:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by nator, posted 07-01-2004 10:25 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Loudmouth, posted 07-01-2004 4:35 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 233 by nator, posted 07-02-2004 8:30 AM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 234 by nator, posted 07-02-2004 10:11 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 253 (120891)
07-01-2004 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Hangdawg13
07-01-2004 2:08 PM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
quote:
The Hebrew is a very precise language. They say in 5 words what we say in 10 and have more meaning in it than we do.
Actually, Hebrew is less precise in it's grammar than english is. Therefore, it is easier to take words and make them into a sentence within Hebrew. I am not saying that you are right or wrong about the importance of the geneology, just pointing out what I remember as accurate. If I remeber correctly, the insertion of grammar was left up to the reader when reading Hebrew. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.
Also, Schrafinator made a very good point about some of the names being left out. You claim that the flood was interrupted by the flood, yet these names are still part of the geneology regardless if there was a flood or not. Removing these names seems suspicious to me.
quote:
But you can use the Bible to prove it's divinely inspired by prophecy that shows it is an "integrated message system from outside our time domain".
If I was able to play the same trick with a driving manual would that make the Ford Company a divinely inspired automaker?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-01-2004 2:08 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 233 of 253 (121152)
07-02-2004 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Hangdawg13
07-01-2004 2:08 PM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
quote:
STILL no comment on my 3 very good arguments about God's character? Sigh... I guess you concede that I am right then... haha
I did respond in message #205 of this thread.
Your rebuttals were more apologetics and several "No, it isn't"-type comments.
quote:
The Hebrew is a very precise language.
LOL!
quote:
They say in 5 words what we say in 10 and have more meaning in it than we do.
No, they actually allow the reader to insert his or her own meaning into the sentence, because there are bits left out.
quote:
It still makes sense even without the added words although saying it in english without the added words is a bit awkward.
That is absolutely incorrect.
Let's look at the sentences with and without the added articles, shall we?
Your version:
Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.
The non-embellished version:
Man appointed mortal sorrow; the Blessed God shall come down teaching His death shall bring despairing rest.
In the non-doctored version, it is man who "appointed mortal sorrow". By inserting "is", you change the meaning significantly.
Also, it looks like God is going to come down teaching about God's own death and that this will bring rest, but that this rest is characterized by the feeling of despair.
quote:
English translations are filled with added words to try to convey the full meaning of it in Hebrew.
I don't buy that, and I'll explain why in a moment.
Second, are all of these translations of names agreed upon as most accurate, or have they been selected to make more sense in a sentence?
quote:
Sure look up their roots and you will get the same thing. Several of the names are already explained in the context.
Here are their roots. Several of them don't make sense in the sentence you gave:
Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Adam = origin word:119 to be red, red 120 man, mankind
Seth = origin word: to put, set 7896
Enos = origin word: man, mortal man, person, mankind 582
Kenan = origin word: nest 7064
Mahalaleel = origin word: praise, boast 4110 and 410 god, god-like one, mighty one
Jered or Jared = origin word: to go down, descend, decline, march down, sink down 3381
Enoch = origin word: to train, dedicate, inaugurate 2596
Methuselah = origin: male, man 4962 and weapon, missile, sprout missile, weapon a. sprout, shoot 7973
Lamech = unused root of uncertain meaning [however has no roots in common with the words used for lamentation or its roots]
Noah = origin word: resting place 5118
I actually did find a site which explained all of this, but I'll bet it's one you haven't ever tried to find, because it is a skeptical site.
The page cannot be found
Here are a few more definition lists from other sites:
1. Smith's Bible Dictionary Smiths Bible Dictionary Online
2. Easton's Bible Dictionary Eastons Bible Dictionary Online
3. Theological Word Book of the Old Testament Strong's #04968 - - Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary - StudyLight.org
4. The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
1)Ad’am (red earth )
2) red, a Babylonian word, the generic name for man
3) "red"
4) "red"
1)Seth (compensation ),
2) appointed; a substitute
3) "compensation"
4) "compensation"
1)E’nos (mortal man ),
2) man the son of Seth
3) "man"
4) "man"
1)Ke’nan (possession )
2) Cainan possession; smith.
3) "possession"
4) "possession"
1)Mahal’ale-el (praise of God).
2) praise of God.
3) "praise of God"
4) "praise of God"
1)Ja’red (descent ),
2) descent.
3) "descent"
4) "descent"
1)E’noch (dedicated).
2) initiated.
3) "dedicated "
4) "dedicated"
1)Methu’selah (man of the dart )
2) man of the dart,
3) "man of the dart"
4) "man of the dart"
1)La’mech (powerful ),
2) the strikerdown; the wild man.
3) "powerful"
4) "powerful"
1)No’ah (rest ),
2) rest,
3) "motion"
4) "rest"
So, it seems some of the meanings of the words are not clear, and can mean different things. It is obvious that these meanings have been carefully chosen and sifted through to make a coherent sentence, but even then some English words had to be added to change the meaning to the desired one. In some cases, the meanings have been changed outright.
quote:
Eve gave birth to Seth saying: God has appointed me a son.
The most common translation for "Seth" is "compensation".
quote:
Some of the others are explained elsewhere like Methuselah: "His death shall bring" the flood.
The most common translation of "Methuselah" is "man of the dart".
As you can see, some serious liberties were taken to pick and choose and stretch and interpret the meanings of the words in your so-called amazing sentence.
Here's the sentence as you submitted it:
"Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest."
Now lets plug in the most common meanings (or just as common) for the names instead of the cherry picked ones:
"Red (is) compensation man posession; (but) praise of God descent dedicated (that) man of the dart (the) powerful rest."
Hmm, not really much like the first one, eh?
Now lets remove the added articles and punctuation:
"Red compensation man posession praise of God descent dedicated man of the dart powerful rest."
Even worse now, I'm afraid.
Does this sentence also form a grammatical sentence in ancienct Hebrew?
quote:
Yep.
Source and evidence, please.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-02-2004 09:05 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-01-2004 2:08 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-02-2004 8:04 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 234 of 253 (121169)
07-02-2004 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Hangdawg13
07-01-2004 2:08 PM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
Fourth, why do you cut off the last verse of Gen 5, in which Noah's offspring Shem, Ham, and Japeth are listed? What do their names translate to mean, and do those translations fit into the "sentence"?
quote:
Because the geneology is interrupted by the flood.
No, it isn't, either as it's written in Gen 5, nor chronologically.
Noah's three sons were born before the flood, and they are included in the geneology in Gen 5.
I will ask you again;
What are the definitions of their names and do they fit into the sentence?
Why were they left off?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-01-2004 2:08 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 235 of 253 (121322)
07-02-2004 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by nator
07-02-2004 8:30 AM


Re: Ok an athiests turn then
Thank you for your reply.
I did respond in message #205 of this thread.
Your rebuttals were more apologetics and several "No, it isn't"-type comments.
My description of a limit was not apologetics, in fact I came up with that one off the top of my head, yet you never have mentioned it. I take this as evidence that what 1 Cor. says is true that spiritual truth, or apologetics as you say, is foolishness to you because you do not have the Spirit's power.
No, they actually allow the reader to insert his or her own meaning into the sentence, because there are bits left out.
No, this is your atheist spin on the fact that Hebrew is much more context oriented than english.
In the non-doctored version, it is man who "appointed mortal sorrow". By inserting "is", you change the meaning significantly.
Acutually I believe this word order indicates that appointed is passive. If it said appointed man mortal sorrow, then, in english this would mean man appointed mortal sorrow. Look at the word order in the original of Gen. 1:1 Judging by context and word order, our sentence is best translated man is appointed...
Also, it looks like God is going to come down teaching about God's own death and that this will bring rest, but that this rest is characterized by the feeling of despair.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Jesus was God and Jesus did preach about his own death and that his death would bring power and rest. I've discovered the root to Lamech means power, not lamentation. Jesus did also teach that his disciples would receive the power of the H.S.
Here are their roots.
These are the name's meanings, but not their root meanings. Some have the same meaning as their root's meanings, and some do not.
Nice in the english language comes from the Latin "nescius" which means ignorant. Nice has a totally different meaning than it's root which means ignorant. Look nice up in your dictionary and I don't believe it will give you the root and it's meaning. Similarly some of the names' meanings changed from their roots as well. Look up Methuselah in a lexicon and you get man of the dart. It is easy to see how this came to be from the roots: Muth = death and shalach = shall bring. Some english words do carry their original root's meanings, like amiable which carrys the root meaning to love.
I actually did find a site which explained all of this, but I'll bet it's one you haven't ever tried to find, because it is a skeptical site.
Actually, I did read this and several other sites. However, I think there are too many coincidences here to continue being a skeptic.
As you can see, some serious liberties were taken to pick and choose and stretch and interpret the meanings of the words in your so-called amazing sentence.
Sure you can do this with most any sentence in the english today. Just look up each word and pick the last word in the definition and re-write it with that word. So how do we know what meaning is meant? Context. Also, I claimed that the meanings of the roots are what must be used, not the evolved meaning of the name.
When you consider the roots' meanings:
Adam is synonymous with man, so that's obvious. From this ruddy or blood man or red man or red is derived, but man was the original meaning.
Seth means appointed as stated by Eve, so we know this is it's set meaning, but it also means set or fixed or placed.
Enos comes from roots meaning sickness and man, or mortal man, or mortality.
Kenan means dwelling, but it is unclear whether it is incorrectly assumed to be taken from the aramaic root Cainan. Apparently the original Hebrew root meant sorrow. Either definition makes perfect sense, but I think the Hebrew root is what we are after.
Mahalalel undisputedly means praised God or Blessed God.
Jared comes from roots meaning to descend or come down.
Enoch comes from roots meaning to commence instruction. He was a teacher or prophet (see Jude 1:18).
Methuselah comes from roots Muth and shalach which mean death and bring forth or send forth. It is easy to see how "man of the dart" came out of these roots. It was customary that all the names had significance at the time. Since Methuselah's father was a prophet and Methuselah's death did bring the flood, it is probable that Enoch named him as a prophecy of the coming judgement.
Lamech's name presents the only real problem, which I do not have any more time to investigate. Some have stated that the original root's meaning is sorrow, but others say the root's meaning is uncertain. If the original meaning was power, then this would make sense as this is what Jesus taught.
Noah as explained means to give rest or to comfort.
So with the original root's meanings (not general meanings from a lexicon or concordance) and english grammer added by context, we have:
Man is appointed mortal (sorrow or habitation?); the blessed God shall descend (or come down) commencing instruction (or teaching or prophecying) that his death shall bring (or death sends forth) power (or the despairing) and rest (or comfort).
It all still checks out.
After Noah we have a sentence describing the solution Christ will bring through Noah at his 2nd coming ending the toil that began with the curse. This completes the sentence and the geneology.
Shem Ham and Japheth are mentioned as a part of Noah's entry in the geneology as his sons, but themselves are not addressed until the next geneology after the flood.
I would be most surprised if you are at all provoked to thought by this, but I thought I would lay it all out anyway. Since this is WAY off topic, I will say no more and let you have the last word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by nator, posted 07-02-2004 8:30 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-06-2004 7:25 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Sleeping Dragon
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 253 (122354)
07-06-2004 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Hangdawg13
07-02-2004 8:04 PM


To Hangdawg13:
.....and I'm back! So what did I miss?
Hangdawg13, haven't I repeatedly shown the flaws in your circular reasoning? Would you like me to examine your posts in depth to illustrate your post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias (if any, I'm not sure since I haven't started)?
Patiently awaiting your reply.
(By the way...no reply to post 224? I'm so bored....)

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-02-2004 8:04 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-07-2004 7:05 PM Sleeping Dragon has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 237 of 253 (122789)
07-07-2004 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Sleeping Dragon
07-06-2004 7:25 AM


Hello SD,
Hangdawg13, haven't I repeatedly shown the flaws in your circular reasoning? Would you like me to examine your posts in depth to illustrate your post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias (if any, I'm not sure since I haven't started)?
Well, Schraf and I got into a big debate when Schraf said that a six year old girl being raped and murdered was incompatible with the existence of a just all-powerful god. Check out the posts if you want.
The debate was as usual quite pointless as far as coming to agreement on anything, but it did allow me to examine God's character to a greater depth.
(By the way...no reply to post 224? I'm so bored....)
I'll take a look at it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-06-2004 7:25 AM Sleeping Dragon has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 238 of 253 (122801)
07-07-2004 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Sleeping Dragon
06-29-2004 11:04 AM


Firstly, science doesn't ever find "truth", as I've said before. It is assumed that the ultimate "truth" that defines the universe will never be found.
Well, what is your definition of truth? Could it not be considered truth that when water is cooled below zero degrees celcius at 1 atm that it freezes? ...yes of course this is defined by all kinds of different forces, which we do not fully understand.
Secondly, "a biased outlook" is one that exists regardless of evidence to the contrary.
I forgot exactly what we were talking about here.
If scientific theories are formulated such that it can best (relatively) explain the evidence available (that is, it minimises/explains conflicting evidence), I suppose we would say that it is a decidedly unbiased (objective) outlook, regardless of who holds it.
I agree.
The fact that evidence does not support this position makes the statement "If the bible is true..." as worthwhile as "If Santa Claus exists...".
Haha, when I was about three or four I told my mom I did not believe in Santa Claus because for him to go visit every house on earth he would have to practically be everywhere at once, and I learned in Sunday school that only God is everywhere at once. Since Santa Clause is not God, he can't be real and do what people claim he does.
Anyways... you cannot falisfy the Bible as truth, and I have my own reasons to believe it is true.
Well, the reason why physically verifiable proofs are valued is because it changes "There are super magical fairies" to "I have phyically verifiable evidence of the existence of super magical fairies". Wow! The difference it makes!
I agree. That is one reason why God put prophecy in the Bible. However, as time passes and languages change and historical records disappear it becomes harder to verify this. This is one reason why so much prophecy concerns the "end-times". But let's ignore this for now as I am not prepared to debate prophecy right now.
Well, I'm questioning the difference between the physical and the metaphysical. If God can influence us, and we can influence God, what's the difference between the physical realm and the metaphysical?
Hmm... I was defining the physical realm as the three or four dimensions we can observe. Angels have certain specific qualities and are bound by this universe in ways we cannot observe usually observe. God as the creator, however, is not bound by the universe but only his own character. Our spirit and soul are truly metaphysical I guess.
As Lam has stated, he started the thread in an attempt to examine the "physical evidence" proposed by theists in proving (scientifically or otherwise) the existence of God, because he/she is sick and tired of having those (apparently) unsupported arguments shoved in his face along with the assertion that the biblical God exists. You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of Lam's thread.
I do not think there is physical evidence right now (I could be wrong), but only historical (which I am not yet prepared to debate).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 06-29-2004 11:04 AM Sleeping Dragon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 07-08-2004 1:03 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 240 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-08-2004 9:23 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 239 of 253 (122861)
07-08-2004 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Hangdawg13
07-07-2004 7:35 PM


Could it not be considered truth that when water is cooled below zero degrees celcius at 1 atm that it freezes?
Why? Just because that's happened every time so far that we've done the experiment?
It's called the "inductive fallacy", and it's the position that, even though a given experiment has had the same result for each of 1000 trials, you still can't be absolutely, positively certain of the outcome of the 1001st trial.
I know it seems like nit-picky hairsplitting, but it's an important realization of the limits of scientific inquiry, and the necessity of scientific tentativity. Our scientific models will always be approximations of the basic physical principles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-07-2004 7:35 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Sleeping Dragon
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 253 (122906)
07-08-2004 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Hangdawg13
07-07-2004 7:35 PM


To Hangdawg13:
Thank you for your reply.
Reply to your post:
Well, Schraf and I got into a big debate when Schraf said that a six year old girl being raped and murdered was incompatible with the existence of a just all-powerful god. Check out the posts if you want.
Nah...I'm much too lazy. I'll just pick post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias from our debate.
Well, what is your definition of truth? Could it not be considered truth that when water is cooled below zero degrees celcius at 1 atm that it freezes?
{Read Crashfrog's post 239}
There are people in the world who buys lottery tickets every day of their lives and never won anything. Is "lottery can never be won" truth?
Definition of truth? Look up the dictionary. I'm happy with any definition you come across as long as the dictionary is a valid one.
I forgot exactly what we were talking about here.
You've made some weird remark in post 223 stating that truth is "assimilated" to become our "biased outlook". Forget it, what you said doesn't make much sense either way and I was only humouring myself with the explanation.
Anyways... you cannot falisfy the Bible as truth, and I have my own reasons to believe it is true.
Do you still not understand? I'm happy that you believe that the bible is true. You can believe that it is true until kingdom comes for all I care. However, there is a clear difference between BELIEVING and BROADCASTING.
When you assert that something is true while you possess no physical proof, you could be misleading (even though it may be with good intentions) as opposed to informing. You could be spreading falsehood instead of truth. I will state this one last time: You believing something is truth does not make it true.
That is one reason why God put prophecy in the Bible. However, as time passes and languages change and historical records disappear it becomes harder to verify this. This is one reason why so much prophecy concerns the "end-times". But let's ignore this for now as I am not prepared to debate prophecy right now.
And here's where post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias take its toll.
Consider: I will now make a 100% accurate prophecy -
"The brother has fallen from the kingdom lost.
Before her time of glory, the judgment awaits.
For the ape has summoned the courts of deception.
And the beast was set loose beyond the plane."
Every single line of the above prophecy will be realised on newspaper headlines within one week from now. Care for a wager?
Hmm... I was defining the physical realm as the three or four dimensions we can observe. Angels have certain specific qualities and are bound by this universe in ways we cannot observe usually observe. God as the creator, however, is not bound by the universe but only his own character. Our spirit and soul are truly metaphysical I guess.
And this answers my question...how? My question is: What separates the physical (us) from the metaphysical (God and Angel and Devils and Easter bunnies) apart from the fact that they are much more powerful beings (ESPECIALLY Easter bunnies).
I do not think there is physical evidence right now (I could be wrong), but only historical (which I am not yet prepared to debate).
So like I said. Who has the capacity to physically disprove God? It is an impossible task defined by the very limitations of science (the physical realm).
Patiently awaiting your reply.

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-07-2004 7:35 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-09-2004 12:40 AM Sleeping Dragon has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024