|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Forum name change | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hit wrong key twice before ready to submit
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Dr Sing writes: Problem is, Buz, they don't even realize they have a soul. They'd want to physically behold it to know for sure..... When people disconnect themselves with their spiritual inner man, they become too acquainted with the material man.... And within such a worldview, life is pre-occupied with accuracy, numbers, and evidence (among other things)....souls and spirits belong in fairly tales....and it becomes ever harder to convince....No matter how logical and authentic an argument is provided, it will be bushed off as inaccurate or irrelevant to their worldview.... But Doc, how do you arrive at this.......
Dr Sing writes: The number 1 reason I don't contribute to the creo/evo debate is because it is meaningless,..... in view of my previous response? You didn't touch on the high point of my message, relative to the credibility factor of the Biblical record? Edited by Buzsaw, : fix error Edited by Buzsaw, : update msg title BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
NWR writes: No, that does not follow. You can only conclude is that parts of the Bible are metaphorical. Of course there are obvious metaphorical parts clearly implied in some texts, NWR, but when you wave off the underlying Genesis foundation of origins, upon which the credibility of the book rests, you destroy the credibility of the whole book. Edited by Buzsaw, : Message title BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Buzsaw writes:
No, the credibility of the rest of the book stands on the credibilility of the rest of the book. That you "destroy the credibility of the whole book" is nonsense.Of course there are obvious metaphorical parts clearly implied in some texts, NWR, but when you wave off the underlying Genesis foundation of origins, upon which the credibility of the book rests, you destroy the credibility of the whole book. I'll grant that you destroy the theology of original sin. But the theology of original sin is made up bullshit theology, invented after the time of Jesus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3736 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Buz writes: Essentially, it's logic vs the BB, biogenesis and evolution. Logic's argument is that the alleged BB singularity event had no space in which to have existed, no time in which it could have happened and no outside of into which it could have expanded. Logic says that the probability of a sub-particle, sub-sub-sub........microscopic area of whatever progressing in complexity and volumn into all (and more) of what we can observe today void of any intelligent planning or design, is less than the probability of the Biblical record You're right. To produce something (let alone a complex something) out of nothing isn't logical. Its the like the story where a little kid asks his dad "what is under the universe, daddy?" and the dad tells him that a big, strong elephant is there holding the universe on its back. Next day he asks him what's under the big, strong elephant, and the dad tells him...well, another elephant...and the dad keeps stacking imaginary elephants in serial order under the universe.......but does that answer the kid's question? Nope. All he's got down to now is the bottommost elephant but he still needs to know whats under THAT elephant.....it goes on and on....If the question has a legitimate answer, it is that there has always been that last elephant and that one need not be supported by another one...he's independent. Logic provides a simple answer to a complicated question. If God does not qualify for the first uncaused causative agent, then we're left to choose from eternal matter, or eternal time, or the illogical get-something-out-of-nothing option. Of course, matter is not eternal....and if we went on and on and on travelling towards eternity we would NEVER know or have a starting point, so that's a logical contradiction right there, and so all we're left with is a illogical rut to own up. Which somehow is more appealing than the possibility of God when the entire universe contains such a high degree of complexity, order, and design...
Logic says that the probability of a sub-particle, sub-sub-sub........microscopic area of whatever progressing in complexity and volumn into all (and more) of what we can observe today void of any intelligent planning or design, is less than the probability of the Biblical record which is supported by significant corroborating evidences.....Logic argues that the relative uniformatarian math model for the BB is at least (I say at least) as non-falsifiable as the Biblical record. That's good but not good enough, I guess. I don't think that would suffice the evolutionists. They'd accept the Biblical account if it were testable, falsifiable and reproducible. And the Biblical Genesis account does not conform. But this does not destroy its credibility in any way. Like you said, there is logic and some physical evidence to back it up. But ultimately, I think it all goes to back to whether or nor you allow supernatural to exist in your dictionary. If you willingly kick it out, then you end up accepting equally abstract and more inexplicably bizzare theories like big bang and biopoesis... which involve concepts like singularities which defy our current understanding but are our favored resort...etc etc. Unfathomable.
Buz writes: But Doc, how do you arrive at this.......
Dr Sing writes: The number 1 reason I don't contribute to the creo/evo debate is because it is meaningless,..... The rationale is that there is no basis to prove God. Therefore, a complete acceptance of the Biblical record relies on faith. Granted, it has overwhelming supporting evidence and that really is enough but again a scientific theory needs to be liable to testability, falsifiability, and reproducibility. So when evolution conforms to the scientific method somewhat better than creation, why would they believe in God? After all, isn't accuracy what they're after? And why would they listen if I told them? So the best stance I can take is to question their theory. If they are open, they will see the flaws. If not............ Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Problem is, Buz, they don't even realize they have a soul. No it is the fact that we realized that we have no such thing thing as a soul. The soul is just more of the bronze age mythology. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
NWR writes: No, the credibility of the rest of the book stands on the credibilility of the rest of the book. That you "destroy the credibility of the whole book" is nonsense.I'll grant that you destroy the theology of original sin. But the theology of original sin is made up bullshit theology, invented after the time of Jesus. But still, it's analogous to a person who lies enough about important matters that he/she looses credibility. In this case Jehovah, god of the book looses credibility. Not only that, but all of the people of the book such as OT patriarchs, Jesus, son of Jehovah and his apostles, loose credibility because they alude to the Genesis record as factual. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3736 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Some may be nice and some may be... not so nice, like yourself?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Buzsaw writes:
Not at all.But still, it's analogous to a person who lies enough about important matters that he/she looses credibility. Did Charles Dickens lose credibility for writing "Oliver Twist"?
Buzsaw writes:
What loses credibility, is the ridiculous assumption that God is the author of the biblical text. That assumption is an invention of theologians.
In this case Jehovah, god of the book looses credibility. Buzsaw writes:
Do they? People make allusions to Sherlock Holmes in similar ways, yet nobody says that those are "as factual". I say that the allusions to the Genesis creation story are simply allusions to a well understood part of the culture. It is the theologians who create problems by asserting that those allusions are "as factual".
In this case Jehovah, god of the book looses credibility. Not only that, but all of the people of the book such as OT patriarchs, Jesus, son of Jehovah and his apostles, loose credibility because they alude to the Genesis record as factual.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4601 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Therefore, a complete acceptance of the Biblical record relies on faith. Granted, it has overwhelming supporting evidence and that really is enough Does it rely on faith or evidence? Why would you continue to have faith in something when you can drop the faith and just point at the evidence? Surely faith in your left hand pales compared to your ability to actually test its existence.
So when evolution conforms to the scientific method somewhat better than creation, why would they believe in God? So evolution is like a circle, creation is like a square... and God can't make circles.
So the best stance I can take is to question their theory. Excellent idea. Shame your carrying all that baggage. Its tough to actually learn anything when you start off unable to believe a single word of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4717 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined:
|
Problem is, Buz, they don't even realize they have a soul. That is the kind of pitying, parochial crap that doesn't endear you to an atheist. Problem is, Dr. Sing, you don't even realize you have a patronizing attitude.
They'd want to physically behold it to know for sure..... To know for sure? How about to know at all?
When people disconnect themselves with their spiritual inner man, they become too acquainted with the material man.... And within such a worldview, life is pre-occupied with accuracy, numbers, and evidence (among other things).... Ouch! Evidence. I didn't realize till just now how unreasonably demanding I was being. And might I ask, to what standard are we judging accuracy: "comportment with reality", by any chance? Us: "A world wide flood 4350 years ago would leave unmistakable evidence in every back yard every where in the world. Every 5 year old with a Tonka bulldozer would have dug up evidence of it and proudly announced "Look Mummy, the flood layer.'" Ya'l: "If the good Lord left evidence of the flood we'd have no choice to believe and that would sacrifice our free will. And anyway, there's tons of evidence, look at the Grand Canyon."
souls and spirits belong in fairly tales.... Thanks, I'm going to quote mine you with this. "And over in the Forum Name Change thread Dr. Sing admitted that souls are fairy tales. Or should I pin it down that accurately? No; "over at EvC " will do. Wouldn't want anyone accusing me of being too accurate.
and it becomes ever harder to convince....No matter how logical and authentic an argument is provided, it will be bushed off as inaccurate or irrelevant to their worldview.... Or just plain ol' wrong. 2+2 is 4 regardless of worldview. It is your nebulous worldview that allows you to equate wishes with reality. Neither having solid edges allows you to pretend they somewheres overlap. Atheist glasses allow us to see that they don't. You're right. To produce something (let alone a complex something) out of nothing isn't logical. IOW: "Logic is defined by my understanding."
Its the like the story where a little kid asks his dad "what is under the universe, daddy?" and the dad tells him that a big, strong elephant is there holding the universe on its back. Next day he asks him what's under the big, strong elephant, and the dad tells him...well, another elephant...and the dad keeps stacking imaginary elephants in serial order under the universe.......but does that answer the kid's question? Nope. I don't understand. Why would the dad's making up mystical things not explain the Universe? I mean: the dad could tell him that the world was made by a powerful being who lifted the it up out of the sea. Then made all the bunnies and flowers from dirt. Then made people to give them all names. You're right, I'm being stupid. Who'd believe that?
All he's got down to now is the bottommost elephant but he still needs to know whats under THAT elephant.....it goes on and on....If the question has a legitimate answer, it is that there has always been that last elephant and that one need not be supported by another one...he's independent. So, who created the creator?
Logic provides a simple answer to a complicated question. IOW: "Logic is my understanding."
If God does not qualify for the first uncaused causative agent, For something to "qualify" it first has to exist, don't you think. Atheists don't say "God, who clearly exists, doesn't qualify at a creator because of this, that and the other attribute."
then we're left to choose from eternal matter, or eternal time, or the illogical get-something-out-of-nothing option. No, We're left with time and energy coming out of an observable something for nothing (casimir effect). (Not overly accurate, but who'd want that?)
Of course, matter is not eternal....and if we went on and on and on travelling towards eternity we would NEVER know or have a starting point, so that's a logical contradiction right there, and so all we're left with is a illogical rut to own up. What? Your straw man produces a logical contradiction. Who'd have ever guessed that out come? Simply baffling.
Which somehow is more appealing than the possibility of God when the entire universe contains such a high degree of complexity, order, and design... It's not a matter of "appealing". Seventy-two virgins appeals more to most of us assuming they don't have to stay that way but reality isn't a matter of what we'd like it to be.
That's good but not good enough, I guess. I don't think that would suffice the evolutionists. That being right thing that the evolutionists are always on about rears its ugly head again, Jeez!
They'd accept the Biblical account if it were testable, falsifiable and reproducible. And the Biblical Genesis account does not conform. But this does not destroy its credibility in any way. IOW: "There is no evidence."
Like you said, there is logic and some physical evidence to back it up. IOW: "There is some evidence."
But ultimately, I think it all goes to back to whether or nor you allow supernatural to exist in your dictionary. IOW: "There is no evidence."
If you willingly kick it out, then you end up accepting equally abstract and more inexplicably bizzare theories like big bang and biopoesis... which involve concepts like singularities which defy our current understanding but are our favored resort...etc etc. Unfathomable. IOW: "I don't understand their evidence so I'll discount it."
The rationale is that there is no basis to prove God. Therefore, a complete acceptance of the Biblical record relies on faith. IOW: "There is no evidence."
Granted, it has overwhelming supporting evidence and that really is enough IOW: "There is much evidence."
but again a scientific theory needs to be liable to testability, falsifiability, and reproducibility. IOW: "There is no evidence."
So when evolution conforms to the scientific method somewhat better than creation Some what better? I know that dissecting an argument line by line is not the best form but you keep saying the most blatantly stupid thing line by line.
why would they believe in God? After all, isn't accuracy what they're after? And why would they listen if I told them? So the best stance I can take is to question their theory. If they are open, they will see the flaws. If not............ You told; we listened. We told; you ignored. It's the nature of religion. Edited by lyx2no, : Correct formating. Edited by lyx2no, : Punc. You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Whines and moans then never participates in the thread.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
I have been away for a while. Was it actually a 1 when you posted? It is 4.2 now. If it was this goes to show how worthless the ratings are.
ABESaw further posts saying they raised rating, but this whole scenario really highlights your paranoia Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Hi Doc,
Granny writes: Some may be nice and some may be... not so nice, Dr Sing writes: like yourself? That right Doc. Sometimes I'm nice and sometimes... not so nice. It really depends on who I'm talking to and how reasonable they are being. For instance, when someone mis-characterises my position like this;
Dr Sing writes: They'd accept the Biblical account if it were testable, falsifiable and reproducible. it kinda annoys me. After all, what kind of moron would demand that a historical event be repeatable? Still never mind. You could always prove your honesty by living up to this claim;
Dr Sing writes: If I ever make a serious and specific claim on these forums, I'll substantiate it with reason.... and this claim;
Therefore, a complete acceptance of the Biblical record relies on faith. Granted, it has overwhelming supporting evidence and that really is enough And look! There is a thread newly opened for that very topic - Evidence for the Biblical Record. What luck! Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
I think that would strike only retards as humorous. What right do you have to use such an offensive term about handicapped people. Do you use the words nigger, slope and spic too?I have a developmentally disabled son, the term retard is a term of bias, prejudice and hate. Why am I not surprised. A typical self-righteous christian. Edited by Theodoric, : punctuation Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024