Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God says this, and God says that
John
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 417 (26377)
12-12-2002 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by gene90
12-11-2002 6:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
You said that prior bias always causes spurious "evidence" to be found, ie, if you believe something you always start seeing evidence for it. As I said, that's a notion very common in Creationism, that evolution bias in the science is generating spurious evidence. Are you supporting their assertion? Or, "since it isn't your reasoning," are you retracting?
hmmm... not either really. Such bias is bound to exist in any endeavor no matter what side you are on. I think the methods of science are designed to overcome this bias and I also think those methods do a very good job of it. The personal biases of thousands of individuals should somewhat cancel out and the appeal to detectable evidence and reproducible results weeds out most of the rest.
quote:
Then state your argument.
It is reasonable to argue based on what we've got, not on what we don't have.
quote:
Then you admit that atheism is faith-based, just as my religion is faith-based? Or do you seek a redefinition?
It seems to me that you have defined everything that is not absolutely certain to be faith based. Since nothing is absolutely certain-- the fundamental assumptions of any metaphysic cannot be tested-- then eveything is based on faith. I don't really think this is what you mean, but if you are happy with it... fine. It effectively makes faith a useless variable. It exists in all systems, so we simply write it off. Divide by faith across the board and get rid of it.
quote:
Bad analogy. Santa Claus is supposed to generate a physical, tangible result: presents under the tree. Therefore if there are no presents, there is no Santa.
Seems to me that god is supposed to generate a physical tangible result-- everything.
quote:
However, God is not supposed to place presents under the tree, or to miraculously build anything. That's not a part of our model of God, like it is a part of the Santa myth.
God is not supposed to DO anything then? Because doing anything at all should leave marks.
quote:
That's not happening in Christianity, the expectation of a miracle isn't there anyway.
Really?
quote:
Curious you insist on using an analogy I have already demonstrated to be faulty.
That you assert something does not mean I have to buy it.
quote:
But we do use my reasoning in the sciences. In the sciences, we normally don't *disbelieve* a new idea or concept before testing it.
I am aware that this is how you function as a scientist, but you are still trying to slip past the idea that you don't BELIEVE either, without testing. But God can't be tested, as you have explained. Yet you do believe. It is this quirk that troubling.
quote:
If science reasoned the way you do, progress would never be made because no new hypotheses would ever be tested.
And if we believed everything that did not have a positive disproof we'd be in bad shape as well. Yet this is what you appear to argue in the case of your religion.
quote:
Besides, if you have no evidence that there is no God, what room do you have to chide us for no evidence for our belief that there is indeed a God.
My beliefs are based on evidence, not the lack of it. Can you sincerely not see the difference?
quote:
(And it is possible to prove a negative, by the way. Would you like an example exercise?)
... depending upon how you frame the question and what you are testing, sure it is.
quote:
If I were a believer in Santa Claus, and you were too, we could have a theological debate of sorts, because that has nothing at all to do with the version of the myth I was taught.
That's funny. It honestly is part of the version I was taught.
quote:
The way I see it, since you realized the first version of your analogy failed, you are actually trying to alter the myth to make your analogy better.
The way I see it. This is precisely how god got created. But this bit about the invisible workshop I am culling from my childhood.
quote:
However, you have attempted to create a strawman of Christianity, in which we believe God does our construction work for us.
No, I haven't. But God, an active God anyway, should leave imprints.
quote:
This is interesting. You're trying to disprove my theology by telling me what I believe.
No. I am telling you what makes sense to me.
quote:
what "stuff" does God do and how might we identify it?
The basic god-stuff. Heal the sick, for example. And it ought to be detectable via careful statistical analysis. It isn't that hard to dream up a test, but since we'd be testing god... well, he wouldn't perform.
quote:
Further, are you now claiming that belief in God is falsifiable?
If it were not for that little catch about not being able to test god, then I'd say it would be falsifiable.
quote:
And that, by extension, Intelligent Design is a viable science?
That could theoretically be detected doesn't lead directly to this conclusion, but it would help. If God were actually detected it would help a lot.
quote:
Besides if we can test God and we can test God's influence in our universe why not test God's influence on biology?
Sure. Absolutely. If we can test for God and if the test is positive, then jump right into that testing for ID. I'm not worried though, the whole scenario is based on a very big if.
quote:
And if it is testable, it must allow us to make predictions, and be falsifiable--therefore it is a science
Well then let it make predictions and lets test them. If it could do this, regardless of anything else concerning God, I'd consider it science. If the tests fail, though, we have to consider it wrong.
quote:
regardless of whether or not God is real.
The whole edifice rests on the answer to this question. So you can argue that ID needs to be called science. OK. Fine. If it makes good predictions, I'll repent and convert. If not, then its bad science anyway.
quote:
You opened this door, not me.
I don't know why you are so happy about that.
quote:
If you had enough such "coincidences" perhaps you would believe.
Then in fact, you are saying it is distiguishable from coincidence. Which is it?
quote:
However I have the feeling that you will rationalize away just about anything as a coincidence, no matter how extraordinary.
Of course, I have the feeling that you will rationalize any coincidence into evidence.
But you are wrong about me. I would pay attention to extraodinary.
quote:
And even if God did heal a sick person right in front of you, what is to stop you from attributing it to "natural" causes?
If I watch a leg grow back I assure you I would not attribute it to 'natural' causes. There are cases that would convince me, and they are probably not as wild as you imagine.
quote:
In fact, in a universe with "natural" causes everywhere but an omnipotent and omniscient God present, how do you know anything that happens is "natural"?
George Berkeley held a similar belief to this. I like Berkeley. Terrible writer though. Dull like you wouldn't believe.
quote:
That's my problem with your beliefs, they are every bit as unfalsifiable and self-fulfilling as you claim mine are.
Sorry. No. My beliefs are quite falsifiable.
quote:
A "miracle"? No only a disease naturally going into remission, just as it would have done without prayer. You pray for three things and get all those things? Only coincidence!
It should all come out in the statistics. But you load the dice with the idea that God permiates everything and that it all could be God's work. That is unfalsifiable. Even in theory.
quote:
The self-fulfilling beliefs of the atheist are exactly like what they claim to be the self-fulfilling beliefs of the theist.
I hold nothing for which I cannot imagine a falsification. Nor do I attibute everything to natural causes. I attribute a lot to undefined.
quote:
Actually I spent quite a bit of time explaining how God is different from all your analogies, and how they would leave evidence and God would not.
Please try to introduce new information, rather than merely repeating yourself.

Please try to understand that I do not take what you say as gospel.
It was in this post that you introduced the god-permiated universe idea. That is the only model that gets past those analogies. So drop the attitude.
quote:
Are you saying that Christians are "stupid", "evil", and "dishonest" because they are the dominant religion?
Do you really have this much trouble with comprehension? You seem to flying off on tangents quite a bit, mixing and matching cause and effect. The question is simple. You criticise me for voicing my opinion of your religion. A religion which I see as intrusive into my life ( primarily because it gets written into law and nobody notices or cares ). If the situation were reversed, what would you do?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by gene90, posted 12-11-2002 6:43 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by gene90, posted 12-12-2002 12:46 PM John has replied

Chara
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 417 (26390)
12-12-2002 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by John
12-12-2002 12:16 AM


Just wanted to pop in and say something about "faith". I am reminded of Paul (from the NT) who actively pursued and persecuted the church. Did he earn faith? I don't think so. God just kinda "blind-sided" him *chuckling at my own little pun*. Paul in several places was overwhelmed by the fact that he had been saved .... "here is a worthwhile saying, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst." (1 Tim 1:5)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by John, posted 12-12-2002 12:16 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by John, posted 12-12-2002 10:39 AM Chara has not replied
 Message 159 by gene90, posted 12-12-2002 12:09 PM Chara has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 417 (26412)
12-12-2002 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Chara
12-12-2002 6:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Chara:
Just wanted to pop in and say something about "faith". I am reminded of Paul (from the NT) who actively pursued and persecuted the church. Did he earn faith? I don't think so. God just kinda "blind-sided" him *chuckling at my own little pun*. Paul in several places was overwhelmed by the fact that he had been saved .... "here is a worthwhile saying, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst." (1 Tim 1:5)
Yeah. This is an example illustrating why I am confused about gene's insistence that one must earn faith. I really can't a handle on that.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Chara, posted 12-12-2002 6:51 AM Chara has not replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 417 (26418)
12-12-2002 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by John
12-12-2002 12:11 AM


quote:
Stereotype? Funk, everything is a stereotype if you break it down. Would you object to "Christians are honest, hard-working people?" Well, that is a stereotype too. Guess we'll ditch that. You cannot talk about groups without stereotyping, its just that people only complain when they don't like what is said. A stereotype is a concept used to think, and speak, in general terms. The trick is to not apply the general concept to individuals. That is when it causes trouble.
I get mad at any stereotype, and I don't deny the fact that there are some people who proffess to Christianity that portray these characteristics. Even the honest hard working idea is wrong we aren't all honest and hard working. The thing is that we are still human, still tempted in the same ways and we are not perfect. It is insulting to read most of the stuff on your site though I will drop it as it serves no real purpose to continue along this line. Though I find it difficult to do so, I wanted you to admit to how blatantly insulting that site is.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by John, posted 12-12-2002 12:11 AM John has not replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 417 (26421)
12-12-2002 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by John
12-12-2002 12:16 AM


quote:
Personal experience for you. Second hand for me. If you could document anything I'd be interested.
That's fair John, I didn't think of that when I was posting. I could see if there was any record from the hospital of the most miraculaous of those. Actually just talked to that guy the other day. I do recall though that the doctors were not pleased about the whole thing. That kind of thing doesn't sit well with the sciency types.
The other two examples would be hard to document. But these are some of the evidences I personally have of God's hand at work. There are many more but there's not to much point in filling this whole site with these things. This is why a few details that are not very well explained cannot shake my faith. God has left his mark in and around my life, I cannot deny that. It's not that I don't listen to your counter-evidence, just that it holds no weight against the personal evidence. Does that make ANY sense to you?
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by John, posted 12-12-2002 12:16 AM John has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 159 of 417 (26422)
12-12-2002 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Chara
12-12-2002 6:51 AM


quote:
Just wanted to pop in and say something about "faith". I am reminded of Paul (from the NT) who actively pursued and persecuted the church. Did he earn faith? I don't think so.
Paul had a work to do. He's one of the exceptions, and I don't envy him because the he was *given* faith that others have to earn. I suspect the bar will be higher for him in the last days than it might have been otherwise.
See Luke 12:48 and John 20:29.
As for faith being increased, do you not agree that studying the Scriptures, praying, and trying to be like Christ will increase your faith?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Chara, posted 12-12-2002 6:51 AM Chara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by forgiven, posted 12-12-2002 8:13 PM gene90 has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 160 of 417 (26425)
12-12-2002 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by John
12-12-2002 1:34 AM


quote:
Seems to me that god is supposed to generate a physical tangible result-- everything.
Yeah, John...God is ultimately behind *everything*. Have you thought about that yet? How do you empirically test God if God is doing everything
quote:
It is reasonable to argue based on what we've got, not on what we don't have
The argument is invalid because it assumes that there are no "things" outside of our sensory experience. There is no basis for such an assumption.
quote:
if you are happy with it... fine
Good, you're coming to terms with your own faith. Maybe now you won't ridicule faith so much.
quote:
you are still trying to slip past the idea that you don't BELIEVE either, without testing.
You don't necessarily have to believe before testing. At some point there is a transition from non-believer to believer after the open-minded inquiry begins. You do have to refrain from rejecting it though. I contend that is not the same as believing.
quote:
My beliefs are based on evidence, not the lack of it.
So you actually do claim to have evidence "that there is no God". And that evidence is markedly different from a lack of evidence that "there is a God". Well I hope you will elaborate because (1) I don't believe such evidence is possible and (2) I see no difference between the two.
quote:
That you assert something does not mean I have to buy it.
Argument from personal incredulity.
quote:
But God, an active God anyway, should leave imprints.
Then, you are claiming that, by extension, Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design are both legitimate sciences? After all, it is your claim that God's influence on the world is testable.
quote:
No. My beliefs are quite falsifiable.
Not necessarily. I have only your assurance that "if a leg grew back" you would believe. But how could it be proven that God made the leg grow back? I can't think of any way to prove it. (But then again, I'm not the one claiming that God's influence can even be detected).
quote:
That could theoretically be detected doesn't lead directly to this conclusion, but it would help.
I contend that allowing God's influence to "theoretically be detectable" does make ID a science, with or without a positive test result. Lots of theories and hypotheses have been discarded by science over the years, but that does not mean that the theories were not legitimate science at the time, in that they were subjected to the scientific method and ultimately discarded.
But remember, it is not my opinion that God is testable in such a way.
quote:
But you load the dice with the idea that God permiates everything and that it all could be God's work. That is unfalsifiable. Even in theory.
That's exactly my point. God is unfalsifiable. How then can you possibly claim that you have falsified God if the notion is falsifiable?
quote:
But you load the dice with the idea that God permiates everything and that it all could be God's work. That is unfalsifiable. Even in theory.
Well then you can design the tests if you insist that the notion of a god is testable.
quote:
Please try to understand that I do not take what you say as gospel.
I don't expect you to. In fact you're supposed to disagree with me. But I do expect that we both will do our best to keep the hand-waving to a minimum and produce rebuttals to the best of our abilities. I don't claim to have done perfectly but I feel like I'm making a valid effort.
quote:
You criticise me for voicing my opinion of your religion.
I criticize you for what appears to be religious intolerance.
quote:
If the situation were reversed, what would you do?
Move.
I can symptathize with to you a certain extent. The Constitution is supposed to keep religion away from the state but it doesn't do a very good job. But *I* am not the one hanging the Ten Commandments in courtrooms. Just because somebody else is makes me (as a Christian) "evil", "stupid", and "dishonest"? Just because certain groups are "intruding" into your society does not give you license to brand all of Christianity on their behalf. That is stereotyping, bigotry, and intolerance.
Secondly you might as well realize that you live in Baptistland just like I do and that's the cultural affiliation of the place. If you went to Japan, would you be offended by the Taoist shrines? If you went to Mediterranean Europe would you be offended by the cathedrals? There will always be televangelists on Southern television and radio, there will always be giant wooden crosses on our interstate highways and there will always be Jesus billboards. None of these are particularly tasteful but they are a part of the dominant culture. You'll have to get used to it as long as you live here. If not there are other parts of the country where it isn't so bad. And there are lot of foreign countries with no "problems" like this at all...most of Europe for example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by John, posted 12-12-2002 1:34 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by John, posted 12-12-2002 2:42 PM gene90 has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 417 (26430)
12-12-2002 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by gene90
12-12-2002 12:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Yeah, John...God is ultimately behind *everything*. Have you thought about that yet?
Yes. The idea is heavily imbedded in jewish mysticism, of which I am quite fond. The idea is also a part of numerous world religions-- Taoism comes to mind, for example.
quote:
How do you empirically test God if God is doing everything
You don't. The concept becomes unfalsifiable. The argument works equaly well for any god you plug into the blank, hence it pretty muchs negates itself. The question becomes "Which God?" Again, and unanswerable question.
quote:
The argument is invalid because it assumes that there are no "things" outside of our sensory experience. There is no basis for such an assumption.
Though you desperately want this argument to require the assumption that there is nothing outside of sensory experience, it does not require that assumption. Assume that you construct an argument with five premises-- the only ones you've got. You don't have to assume that no other premises exist. You build your argument based on what you've got.
quote:
Good, you're coming to terms with your own faith. Maybe now you won't ridicule faith so much.
LOL... you see it as a victory. I see it as the destruction of all human knowledge. At the very best, the idea that everything is faith-based puts every opinion, no matter how bizarre, on the same level. I have been aware of this since my second year phil classes. You can't, so far as I know, bootstrap your way out of this pit and into an firm knowledge of any kind.
quote:
You do have to refrain from rejecting it though. I contend that is not the same as believing.
Fine, but this contradicts what you have previously asserted.
quote:
So you actually do claim to have evidence "that there is no God".
How often do you need this answer repeated, gene? Are you ignoring my answers on purpose? I have repeatedly stated my position and you have repeatedly made the same misrepresentation. It only makes you look like you are up to something dishonest. I hope this isn't the case, but why else would you repeatedly claim that I maintain something exactly the opposite of what I have repeatedly stated?
quote:
Argument from personal incredulity.
You need to brush up on your fallacies. You provide an argument, which I consider faulty. You ASSERT that your argument is correct and then claim that it is argument from incredulity that I don't take your word for it? Are you really that arrogant?
quote:
Then, you are claiming that, by extension, Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design are both legitimate sciences? After all, it is your claim that God's influence on the world is testable.
Gene, I don't care if they are called actual sciences or not. Whatever you call them, neither has a case.
quote:
Not necessarily. I have only your assurance that "if a leg grew back" you would believe. But how could it be proven that God made the leg grow back?
A significant repeatable deviation from chance that can be correlated with a particular religion-- prayer, sacrifice, whatever-- would go a long way toward convincing me that the adherents of that religion knew something not known to science. I suppose you could always claim that there is no way to prove that it is really god, so in that sense, I suppose you are right. But I'll accept the some margins of error. I don't see that there is any choice, no matter what the subject. However, if one resists the urge to continue moving the goal posts of what god is backwards, we ought to be able to infer something like a God. For example, one could infer the Hebrew God by demonstrating the earth to be 6000 years old, or by demonstrating the Global Flood, or by demonstrating that slaughtering a dove cures leprosy. But since these tests fail, the goal posts get moved back.
quote:
(But then again, I'm not the one claiming that God's influence can even be detected).
Yes. And this is odd to me, knowing as you do that unverifiable theories are pretty useless.
quote:
I contend that allowing God's influence to "theoretically be detectable" does make ID a science, with or without a positive test result.
I don't care really. Calling it a science doesn't give it any more data than the none it already doesn't have.
quote:
That's exactly my point. God is unfalsifiable. How then can you possibly claim that you have falsified God if the notion is falsifiable?
Because, gene, I don't claim to have falsified God. I claim that there is no evidence for God.
quote:
Well then you can design the tests if you insist that the notion of a god is testable.
Seems to me that every experiment that shows an identifiable cause that isn't god is a test that god failed. Of course, defined as you define God, every effect is God, or God's doing. And it just becomes a mind game. I could say that Scotty the Blue Bunnyis an incarnation of this force and have it be as convincing.
quote:
I don't expect you to. In fact you're supposed to disagree with me. But I do expect that we both will do our best to keep the hand-waving to a minimum and produce rebuttals to the best of our abilities. I don't claim to have done perfectly but I feel like I'm making a valid effort.
Fair enough.
quote:
I criticize you for what appears to be religious intolerance.
I tolerate. I don't like and I don't have to like.
quote:
Move.
Yes. Though I happen to think that for all of its faults the US is still the best bet. Sometimes I wonder though.
quote:
Just because somebody else is makes me (as a Christian) "evil", "stupid", and "dishonest"?
No, it doesn't. But I don't judge individuals and don't form opinions about people until I know them. Frankly, this trait has caused me more trouble than good. I tend to give bad people too much lee-way.
quote:
Secondly you might as well realize that you live in Baptistland just like I do and that's the cultural affiliation of the place.
This means I must not protest? I'm not buying that logic.
quote:
If you went to Japan, would you be offended by the Taoist shrines? If you went to Mediterranean Europe would you be offended by the cathedrals?
Don't know really. But I doubt it, because it isn't the shrines or cathedrals that bother me. It is the people exhibiting the dominant behaviors and attitudes associated with the dominant religion. It is no different from criticing communism or fascism, except that you probably consider those things harmful and consider your faith beneficial. I consider all three harmful ( in practise, at least ).
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by gene90, posted 12-12-2002 12:46 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by gene90, posted 12-12-2002 7:17 PM John has replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 417 (26438)
12-12-2002 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Chara
12-11-2002 4:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Chara:
As an imperfect parent, and having been a teenager, I know full well that there are times when a parent is talking but the child is not listening. Could it be perhaps that it is not that God is not "talking" to John, but that he is not listening?
John, don't get upset here. I have heard you say that you have sought God and it appears to you that He is not there. That is fair. It is what you perceive. It does not necessarily mean that your conclusion is correct. You said previously that you used to be bitter, but now you just don't care. (Is that a correct paraphrase of your comment?) Is it possible that you have put up the wall? That God is, after all, speaking, but you can't hear? Not asking you to agree .... just to consider the possibility.
And John, I apologize for the things that have been done to you, or the things that weren't done for you and I ask for your forgiveness.

I didn't see a response to this post, though I may have missed it, I just noticed that I've missed quite a bit on this thread. However if I take Chara correctly here I think she was apologizing to you John on behalf of the body of Christ.
From your web site I gather that we (the body of Christ) have wronged you over the years obviously more than once, as a member of this body I would like to ask your forgiveness as well. Our Lord Jesus, I'm sure is greatly saddened by what we have done to you, and how we have portrayed him to you.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Chara, posted 12-11-2002 4:10 PM Chara has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 163 of 417 (26451)
12-12-2002 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by John
12-12-2002 2:42 PM


quote:
The concept becomes unfalsifiable.
That's my point.
quote:
The question becomes "Which God?" Again, and unanswerable question.
No, the question is not, "which God", the question is, "which model of God (religion) is most correct"? Jews, Muslims, and Christians all believe in a "God" with comparable abilities. We differ on the means of salvation and the proper name of that God. These could be considered different Gods or they could be considered different models of the the same God.
quote:
Assume that you construct an argument with five premises-- the only ones you've got. You don't have to assume that no other premises exist.
You do have to assume no falsifying premises exist, or else the argument is faulty. The sticker is if it is "reasonable" to postulate falsifying premises. You will assume it is not reasonable, I assume in this case that it is. We're both making assumptions.
quote:
I have repeatedly stated my position and you have repeatedly made the same misrepresentation.
I don't see any misrepresentation.
This is your argument:
I claim that there is no evidence for God.
You are turning that into positive evidence that there is no God. Your claim is clearly invalid. How often will I have to repeat that?
quote:
You can't, so far as I know, bootstrap your way out of this pit and into an firm knowledge of any kind.
We claim to be able to reach firm knowledge. See James 1:5.
quote:
we ought to be able to infer something like a God. For example, one could infer the Hebrew God by demonstrating the earth to be 6000 years old, or by demonstrating the Global Flood, or by demonstrating that slaughtering a dove cures leprosy.
Your beliefs are still unfalsifiable. If we could cure leprosy by slaugtering a dove, you would seek out some medical explanation. Then, you would rationalize that the Hebrews knew about it from simple observation of the world, so that there was no need for a God to tell them. An analogy is the kosher food laws, which ban shellfish. Shellfish can be quite lethal, especially if you have no refrigeration or if they absorb some bad diatoms before you harvest them. The Jews knew to avoid them. But we can easily rationalize this away without God: the Jews ate them, they got sick, they didn't eat them any more. Same with attempting to prevent contagion by banning lepers or controlling mildew by destroying infected materials.
Because disbelief in God is unfalsifiable, there is no "miracle" that cannot be rationalized away.
quote:
I tolerate.
I disagree. If I put "Jews are evil" and "Jews are dishonest" on my personal website, would you conclude that I am a tolerant person?
quote:
This means I must not protest?
You can protest laws you don't like but you can't protest the religion itself because they have as much a right to be there as you do. Probably more so because they go back further. And intolerance such as you have demonstrated is not the same as a legitimate protest.
quote:
No, it doesn't. But I don't judge individuals and don't form opinions about people until I know them.
That may be true, but it doesn't change what you have said about Christianity. Nor does it change the fact that you are stereotyping all of Christianity, in a very negative, very hostile, manner.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by John, posted 12-12-2002 2:42 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by John, posted 12-12-2002 11:07 PM gene90 has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 417 (26453)
12-12-2002 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by gene90
12-12-2002 12:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
quote:
Just wanted to pop in and say something about "faith". I am reminded of Paul (from the NT) who actively pursued and persecuted the church. Did he earn faith? I don't think so.
Paul had a work to do. He's one of the exceptions, and I don't envy him because the he was *given* faith that others have to earn. I suspect the bar will be higher for him in the last days than it might have been otherwise.
See Luke 12:48 and John 20:29.
As for faith being increased, do you not agree that studying the Scriptures, praying, and trying to be like Christ will increase your faith?

i have to disagree with you gene... here's the thing... if faith is required for salvation (it is) and if we can earn or deserve any aspect of our salvation (we can't), then what need of Jesus did we have? did he have to die? or would maybe a little torture have done the job?
the bible tells us 'by grace are we saved through faith - and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God - not of works lest any man should boast'... and also we're told that *every* man is given "the measure of faith"... now then, if as you say we have to earn faith, is that not a work? and if it is a work, may we not boast of it to God?
you're standing before God and he asks why he should let you into his heaven.. do you say "because i earned the faith to be here?" or do you say, "because i earned the faith to be here AND because Jesus died for my sins?" or do you say merely "i don't deserve to be here but Jesus Christ died and earned heaven FOR me?"
no gene, if we can earn or deserve salvation in any way, it isn't of grace... we can no more earn enough faith to gain entrance to heaven than we can earn enough righteousness to gain entrance
faith is a gift... all have been given a measure of faith... some harden their hearts, some hide the truth from themselves... but none can earn that which has been freely given

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by gene90, posted 12-12-2002 12:09 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-12-2002 9:48 PM forgiven has not replied
 Message 166 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-12-2002 9:57 PM forgiven has not replied
 Message 172 by gene90, posted 12-13-2002 1:49 PM forgiven has replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 417 (26459)
12-12-2002 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by forgiven
12-12-2002 8:13 PM


Amen and Amen
I agree with that for sure. I was wondering how to address the earning faith thing. Glad you said something.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by forgiven, posted 12-12-2002 8:13 PM forgiven has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by John, posted 12-12-2002 10:38 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 417 (26460)
12-12-2002 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by forgiven
12-12-2002 8:13 PM


Amen and Amen
I agree with that for sure. I was wondering how to address the earning faith thing. Glad you said something.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by forgiven, posted 12-12-2002 8:13 PM forgiven has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 417 (26462)
12-12-2002 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by funkmasterfreaky
12-12-2002 9:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Amen and Amen
I agree with that for sure. I was wondering how to address the earning faith thing. Glad you said something.

Well, strangely enough, I'm siding with you guys on this one. The idea of earning faith just makes no sense to me.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-12-2002 9:48 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Andya Primanda, posted 12-13-2002 2:32 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 417 (26463)
12-12-2002 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by gene90
12-12-2002 7:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
That's my point.
It is your point that belief in God is unfalsifiable? Fine. How does this help?
quote:
No, the question is not, "which God", the question is, "which model of God (religion) is most correct"?
Fine. I don't understand why you feel it necessary to make this point.
quote:
You do have to assume no falsifying premises exist, or else the argument is faulty.
The ASSUMPTION prevents the argument from being faulty? That is absurd. An argument is a self-contained system. The conclusion follows from the premises, or it doesn't. But ASSUMING that the ARGUMENT IS CORRECT-- which is exactly what you your statement equates to-- has no bearing on this.
1) if A then B
2) A
3) therefore B.
Do you assume that there is no not-B out there? Or a not-(if A then B)? NO!!!! #3 follows from #1 and #2. That's it. You are warping common sense and logic pretty far with this one.
quote:
This is your argument:
I claim that there is no evidence for God.
You are turning that into positive evidence that there is no God. Your claim is clearly invalid. How often will I have to repeat that?

I am not turning it into positive evidence. YOU ARE TURNING IT INTO POSITIVE EVIDENCE and calling it my claim. I have repeatedly corrected you on this. How many times do I have to repeat that? Respectfully, when did you become this dense?
quote:
We claim to be able to reach firm knowledge. See James 1:5.
I know that was a joke. That just has to be a joke.
quote:
Because disbelief in God is unfalsifiable, there is no "miracle" that cannot be rationalized away.
Don't you mean that the other way around? At any rate, I disagree.
quote:
I disagree.
Then you disagree based on your your own fantasies. You have no idea how I treat the people around around me.
quote:
If I put "Jews are evil" and "Jews are dishonest" on my personal website, would you conclude that I am a tolerant person?
Tolerance is about letting people live there lives. I bother no one unless bothered first. Come down off your pulpit.
quote:
You can protest laws you don't like but you can't protest the religion itself because they have as much a right to be there as you do. Probably more so because they go back further.
Religion is a concept, a philosophy, whether you like it or not. Its tenants are fair game, whether you like it or not. You sound just a half step from supporting censorship, gene. Is that your plan?
quote:
And intolerance such as you have demonstrated is not the same as a legitimate protest.
Intolerance as I have demonstrated? Have I assulted anyone on the street? Censored any books? Burned any churches? Sponsored any legislation to get Christians thrown to the lions? Nope. So drop it. You hate having your religion turned on the spit. Tough.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by gene90, posted 12-12-2002 7:17 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by gene90, posted 12-13-2002 2:09 PM John 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