|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's not what I said. I said it is necessary to show that GOD said it. I don't accept that the Bible is or even claims to be the direct word of God. Or that if it is somehow the word of God the creationist interpetation is correct. So all those would have to be shown first. Which is an absolute denial of the entire point I've been making all along here. A premise is not open to discussion, dispute and "having to be shown first." A premise is a nonnegotiable.
If the issue really is one of God's authority then Faith should be happy with that. I predict that she will not be because God's authority is not the real issue at all. You predict correctly but on the wrong reasoning. You want to be able to control the terms of my argument. You want to decide my premise for me. You want to tell me what qualifies as the word of God and what doesn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Faith writes:
If that is correct, then debate is pointless. Not just debate here, but any kind of debate at all. A premise is not open to discussion, dispute and "having to be shown first." A premise is a nonnegotiable. If the premises are settled, then all that is required is formal logic. There are plenty of proof verification computer programs to do that. Humans need not be involved in settling truth issues if the premises are settled and non-disputable. In ordinary debating, the premises are always debatable. They are what much of the debate is about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, NWR, my point is that debate IS pointless here once you see what is really going on:
One premise here says that Science has the right to judge God. The other premise says that God has the right to judge Science. At EvC the first premise is enforced aggressively against the second. In another context the second could conceivably be enforced against the first. There is no way to resolve this conflict, one must yield to the other. I'm sure there are many things about these statements you'd like to correct in one way or another but please desist because they are simply an attempt to state the conflict in the pithiest way I can. I am trying to describe why the EvC debate is stacked against creationists and why there is no way for real debate to occur for that reason, why YECs don't stick around etc. Our premise is that God has spoken, the science premise is that science trumps God. Yes you debate the premise all the time here, that is the Science side "debates" the Biblical premise, meaning puts it through the science wringer and claims victory all the time based on what it considers to be proof of its erroneousness. But Bible believers know we're talking about the word of God and that it cannot fail. This is why the debate can't happen here. This message has been edited by Faith, 11-24-2005 11:54 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Of course premises are open for discussion. If anything most debate is about premises.
Your second claim is even worse. If you want to privilege your position by placing some of your beliefs beyond question you are trying to dictate the terms of debate. Refusing to accpet your premsies as unquestionable truth is not dictating which premises you must use - it simply means that you must be able to defend them. I refuse to accept your dictates as to what is and is not the word of God - and because of that you insist that I am trying to dictate what you will or will not accept as the word of God. This is another reason why debate is difficult - creationists prefer to make false accusations rather than admit that they could be wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This is why the debate can't happen here. Not just here but at all. A YEC is not going to yield ever on the fundamental premise that God rules this universe and He's told us there was a worldwide Flood and described enough of Creation for us to know evolution didn't happen. The science side can argue and ridicule all it likes, this isn't going to go away. Meanwhile, creationists may enter the debate for the fun of trying to make a scientific case for the Biblical perspective or whatever creationist perspective they have, but since the science side routinely speaks in contemptuous tones to them the fun rapidly dissipates and they have no reason to stick around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: My proposal addesses this problem, so we already know that that is not the real issue. This is another problem of debatign creationists - they often repeat statements that have been shown to be false. It seems as if you are the one who needs to take a step back and examine the real problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Of course premises are open for discussion. If anything most debate is about premises. What you aren't noticing is that these particular premises are ironclad and immovable on both sides of the debate. They have the quality of absoluteness.
Your second claim is even worse. If you want to privilege your position by placing some of your beliefs beyond question you are trying to dictate the terms of debate. I am not saying they can't be debated on threads for that purpose. I am saying that there is no way to have a discussion about the science questions because the science side has given itself the right to dispute the Bible premise of the YEC (and some other creationists) but refuses the YEC the right to dispute the science premise, which is taken as absolute and indisputable, that is, that the principles of science are the final judge of everything.
Refusing to accpet your premsies as unquestionable truth is not dictating which premises you must use - it simply means that you must be able to defend them. This sounds equitable but when it is the science premise that is calling the terms of defense it is not.
I refuse to accept your dictates as to what is and is not the word of God - and because of that you insist that I am trying to dictate what you will or will not accept as the word of God. Yes, you are, and yes, you may not. Of course you refuse to accept my "dictates" Paul, haven't I said that IS the situation here? Isn't that the situation I'm talking about. I refuse to accept yours as well, but it is yours that dominate at EvC. Try to step back for a minute and see what I'm talking about. I know what is the word of God and you may not dictate to me your contrary view. I think about EVERYTHING from my presupposition of the word of God and it is nonnegotiable, just as your science premise is nonnegotiable.
This is another reason why debate is difficult - creationists prefer to make false accusations rather than admit that they could be wrong. You simply cannot step back from your own assumptions for a minute can you? Always you refuse to grant for a second the different creationist perpective. Always you must judge it as "false" and "wrong" and so on because that's what your presupposition has determined. You simply declare that creationists are wrong, over and over again. And you don't seem to see how that is YOUR nonnegotiable premise in operation. I'm just supposed to submit to it, and if I don't you accuse me of all kinds of evils.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My proposal addesses this problem, so we already know that that is not the real issue. This is absolutely absurd. You reserve to yourself the right to tell me what is and is not the word of God before you will accept my premise. Some proposal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Faith writes: I myself don't have in mind resolving the clash, Paul. I believe the clash is built-in and unresolvable because the two sets of presuppositions are so mutually antagonistic. I'd be content to have it recognized that there is no way to have a debate that isn't slanted either to one side or the other. AbE: Meaning no way to have a debate about the particular science questions that directly relate to the Biblical Creation and Flood stories. There is, on the otherhand, enough to debate that creationists like Institute For Creation Research and other creos debate in the universities and other public arenas extensively on a number of related issues. Creationists must not capitulate on this, for to abrogate the forum to the secularists seems to be the inevitable outcome of your position. Creationists must not leave the secularists in total control of the forum, unchallenged. That leaves them bored and us as loosers. Percy has wisely and graciously widened the debate spectrum so as to allow more alternative input in the debates. Let's not now think and talk like nothing's changed or that there's no profitable debate which might prove helpful to all who are genuinely in persuit of truth, both of the participants and the readers/lurkers. It's like we've been wanting in the fight, haven't we? Now when the opponent allows us into the ring we need now to get in and kick some butt on the basis of our credible presuppositions and premises. Edited for clarification. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-24-2005 12:33 PM The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm trying to define the FUNDAMENTAL problem, I'm not criticizing EvC as such or Percy's attempts to deal with the problem, simply trying to say what it IS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
No, it is only your side that is insisting on "ironclad and immovable premises"
You go on to claim that there can't be a discussion on the science side because you are not allowed to bring in unscientific ideas. And again you equate my refusal to accept bare assertions on our part with an attempt to dictate your beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
One premise here says that Science has the right to judge God.
No, there is no such premise. However, I am willing to participate in a one-on-one debate with you on whether there is such a premise. Are you equally willing?
The other premise says that God has the right to judge Science.
I see this being asserted as a premise. But it is a foolish premise unless God Himself would actually appear and make the argument directly. What those who assert this premise appear to mean is that they, finite mortal humans though they are, have the right to judge science. And they ascribe their own argument to God. Personally, I would think it quite arrogant of me to tell God what His words are. And I find it quite contrary to the ideas of evangelical Christianity (in which I was raised) to see fundamentalists telling God what are His words.
Yes, NWR, my point is that debate IS pointless here once you see what is really going on
You seem to misunderstand the nature and purpose of debate. I have the impression that you think of debate as a way of establishing truth. But truth is what it is, independent of debate. A debate can never establish truth. In my mind, there are several purposes for debating:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote:This is a gross misrepresentation. I have made no such claim. This is the third time you have repeated this grundless flasehood and I request an apology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
One premise here says that Science has the right to judge God.
No, there is no such premise. However, I am willing to participate in a one-on-one debate with you on whether there is such a premise. Are you equally willing? I have shown that there is over and over and over on this thread. I am now involved in a debate with Moose so any other will have to wait.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have been trying to have a civil discussion with you, but your contentiousness prevents it, and it's easy to lose track of what you think you are saying anyway as you always just start shooting off a barrage of accusations, usually without quoting me so I could see what you are talking about, and I don't see any constructive way to proceed from here.
So have a nice Thanksgiving.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024