Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Evidence and Faith"
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 8 of 303 (398760)
05-02-2007 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
04-26-2007 8:52 AM


I think that you need to be clear on exactly what you are asking.
By "the world" do you mean the planet Earth, our Universe or something else ?
By "created" do you mean that some intelligent entity somehow had a hand in the origin of the world - perhaps indirectly - or that an intelligent entity directly made the world or even that the world simply had an origin ?
Taking the liberty of assuming that you mean to ask if there is solid objective evidence that an intelligent entity directly constructed the planet Earth I would have to answer that there is none that I am aware of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 04-26-2007 8:52 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by riVeRraT, posted 05-02-2007 10:08 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 16 of 303 (398931)
05-03-2007 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by riVeRraT
05-02-2007 10:08 PM


I assume that you mean this claim:
1. Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing.
So I would characterise the claim under discussion as asserting that the universe (including the Earth) was directly created by an intelligent entity no more than 10,000 years ago.
In that case there is no real objective evidence for it, and so much evidence against it that it is not a scientiifcally tenable view. The same goes for Creation "Science"'s Flood Geology or the notion of separate creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by riVeRraT, posted 05-02-2007 10:08 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by riVeRraT, posted 05-03-2007 8:46 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 19 of 303 (398984)
05-03-2007 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by riVeRraT
05-03-2007 8:46 AM


quote:
I don't think it has to be 10,000 years ago. Isn't Genesis unspecific enough to allow for any amount of time to have passed?
That's a contentious issue. My view is that a literal reading of Genesis severely limits the time, as the YECs say.
quote:
Aren't there 2 kinds of creationists, young earth, and old earth?
Creation "Science" is strictly Young Earth.
quote:
Does it really matter if we are doing science, when the earth was created? Only that it was created?
If you're asking for objective evidence I don't really think you could find any outside of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by riVeRraT, posted 05-03-2007 8:46 AM riVeRraT has not replied

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


Message 100 of 303 (399969)
05-09-2007 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by riVeRraT
05-09-2007 9:28 AM


quote:
Well my reference to the 500, was Jesus rising from the dead.
I guess you don't know the Bible that well. THe Bible doesn't say that anybody saw that happen.
The only reference to 500 witnesses is 1 Corinthians 15:6
quote:
After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep
Interestingly it does not seem to refer to any event in the Gospels.
So all we have is a claim that 500 unidentiifed people saw something - a claim which apparently was not credible enough to make it into later accounts of the story. If the Gospel writers didn't believe it, why should we ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by riVeRraT, posted 05-09-2007 9:28 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by riVeRraT, posted 05-09-2007 1:49 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 128 by everwondered, posted 05-10-2007 2:27 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 107 of 303 (399993)
05-09-2007 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by riVeRraT
05-09-2007 1:49 PM


Re: STAY ON TOPIC!!!
quote:
Apparently I know it well enough
Except for not knowing what they supposedly saw. And not knowing that none of the Gospel authors actually mention it.
quote:
Why, is because it only says it once, then it is not valid?
That isn't what I said. What I said was that NONE of the Gospel writers mention it. Not even Luke who supposedly made a thorough investigation. If they didn't find it credible, then why should anyone else ?
quote:
You have to respect the fact that a huge religion was started based on those eyewitness accounts, and the power of the Holy Spirit.
Since it isn't an established fact, it doesn't deserve a lot of respect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by riVeRraT, posted 05-09-2007 1:49 PM riVeRraT has not replied

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


Message 129 of 303 (400123)
05-10-2007 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by everwondered
05-10-2007 2:27 PM


Re: just a question, not an attack
The Bible never identifies the author(s) of Genesis, nor does it explain where the stories came from.
The Flood story is fairly clearly a variant of a similar story found in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
The first creation story is, IMHO, largely a creation of the author, a priest writing at about the time of the Babylonian Exile who wrote it to emphasise the Sabbath and the superiority of Jewish religion over Babylonian beliefs.
The second story is older, and its origins more obscure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by everwondered, posted 05-10-2007 2:27 PM everwondered has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by everwondered, posted 05-10-2007 2:42 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 240 of 303 (403265)
06-01-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Hyroglyphx
06-01-2007 3:20 PM


Re: I must concur
quote:
Take for example the old question: "If God exists, then why is there so much evil in the world?"
Well, lets look at it objectively. If there is evil, then there has to be some moral law that we abide by, or at least understand in principle, otherwise, where did the question itself derive?
This must be so because evil cannot exist without good, and vice versa, because they make no sense without that critical comparison and contrast. So if evil exists, then so does good. If good exists, then there is a moral law determining which is which. If there is a moral law, then something must have instituted its policy, otherwise there are no absolutes. If there is no absolute, then there is no good and evil, just opinions.
As we categorically run down the argument, it reads as such:
If there is no God, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is no good. If there is no good, then there is no evil. If there is no evil, then what's your question?
Didn't the question, "If God exists, then why is there evil," just cancel itself out?
You are correct that without an idea of evil the queston makes no sense. And that the concept is not needed unless we have some degree of comparison. However if here is an absolute morality as Christians claim it is false to say that goodcannot exist without evil or vice versa. The absence of a need for the concepts in thought and speech would not mean that the things themselves do not exist.
Secondly we neither need absolutes nor do we need anyone to set those absolutes even if they do exist (indeed it is questionable whether the latter idea even makes sense - it certainly doesn't fit with our intuitive ideas of morality)
But even with all that your response is self-destructive. Ultimately you are arguing that the question makes no sense because God doesn't exist. Your argument amounts to admitting that the question is part of a valid reductio ad absurdam argument against God's existence (assume the premise you want to disprove and show that it leads to a contradiction).
So it is the skeptic who has logic on his side while the Christian is reduced to self-contradiction .
No you didn't prove God. But you did deny that he existed.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-01-2007 3:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-01-2007 4:24 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 247 of 303 (403288)
06-01-2007 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Hyroglyphx
06-01-2007 4:24 PM


Re: I must concur
quote:
Then you make the argument for me. A native of the Amazon may say that ice does not exist, simply because he has never seen it. But his ignorance of such does not negate the existence. However, every man, women, and child has been bestowed this concept of good and evil embedded within them. They didn't ask for it. It just is. Where can such a deep proclivity come from?
Well no, I don't because even if this argument was sound my objections still stand. But it isn't sound. Our sense of morality comes from deeply embedded social instincts plus a good deal of educzation starting from a quite young age.
quote:
See, when you see a man get run down by a car, and that car speeds away, you are angered and sense a deep frustration that a great evil has just occurred. And you turn to us for corroboration. You ask us in attempt that we too intrinsically know and understand your frustration. You are looking for the obligatory response. Why?
Because that's the common human response. Humans DO feel for each other. Or at least for those recognised as being 'one of us'. It's those social instincts - and again a good dollop of education.
quote:
And if we don't need absolutes, then by what measure is a crime committed? By what measure is it right or wrong for a spouse to stray? By what measure do we castigate that man who just butchered his wife and kids?
Since we don't HAVE a demonstrably objective morality the question applies no matter what your view is. You can't prove anything is wrong, all you can do is appeal to other people's subjective views and hope that they agree. Either that's good enough or you have to give up on morality.
quote:
No, I'm arguing that the question only makes sense in that existence.
Which is essentially what I said. Your only answer to the question is to deny that it makes sense - on the assumption that God does not exist.
quote:
You've neglected to explain anything about the skeptic, or why it is self-contradictory for a Christian to assume God in light of the moral argument
THe skeptic can assume that God does not exist. If your argument were correct that would render the question meaningless which solves the problem. And if you can't figure out how it is contradictory to assume that God exists and doesn't exist then your ability to understand logic is even worse than I thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-01-2007 4:24 PM Hyroglyphx 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