Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 6:19 PM
20 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, dwise1, Taq, Theodoric (5 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,790 Year: 4,827/19,786 Month: 949/873 Week: 305/376 Day: 98/57 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Author Topic:   Forum name change
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 128 (550232)
03-13-2010 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Pauline
03-13-2010 6:08 PM


Hit wrong key twice before ready to submit

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 6:08 PM Pauline has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 128 (550233)
03-13-2010 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Pauline
03-13-2010 6:08 PM


Re: Credibility Of Biblical Record
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 6:08 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 8:12 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 128 (550235)
03-13-2010 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by nwr
03-13-2010 4:04 PM


Re: Credibility Of Biblical Record
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by nwr, posted 03-13-2010 4:04 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by nwr, posted 03-13-2010 7:27 PM Buzsaw has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 109 of 128 (550242)
03-13-2010 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Buzsaw
03-13-2010 6:37 PM


Re: Credibility Of Biblical Record
Buzsaw writes:
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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2010 6:37 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2010 11:00 PM nwr has responded

Pauline
Member (Idle past 1840 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 110 of 128 (550255)
03-13-2010 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
03-13-2010 6:14 PM


Re: Credibility Of Biblical Record
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2010 6:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Vacate, posted 03-14-2010 10:18 AM Pauline has not yet responded
 Message 116 by lyx2no, posted 03-14-2010 11:15 AM Pauline has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 111 of 128 (550259)
03-13-2010 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Pauline
03-13-2010 6:08 PM


Re: Hey Admin
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 6:08 PM Pauline has acknowledged this reply

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 128 (550265)
03-13-2010 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by nwr
03-13-2010 7:27 PM


Re: Credibility Of Biblical Record
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by nwr, posted 03-13-2010 7:27 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by nwr, posted 03-13-2010 11:21 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Pauline
Member (Idle past 1840 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 113 of 128 (550266)
03-13-2010 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Granny Magda
03-13-2010 12:53 PM


Re: Hey Admin
Some may be nice and some may be... not so nice,

like yourself?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Granny Magda, posted 03-13-2010 12:53 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Granny Magda, posted 03-14-2010 1:53 PM Pauline has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 114 of 128 (550268)
03-13-2010 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Buzsaw
03-13-2010 11:00 PM


Re: Credibility Of Biblical Record
Buzsaw writes:
But still, it's analogous to a person who lies enough about important matters that he/she looses credibility.

Not at all.

Did Charles Dickens lose credibility for writing "Oliver Twist"?

Buzsaw writes:
In this case Jehovah, god of the book looses credibility.

What loses credibility, is the ridiculous assumption that God is the author of the biblical text. That assumption is an invention of theologians.

Buzsaw writes:
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.

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".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2010 11:00 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2704 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 115 of 128 (550280)
03-14-2010 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Pauline
03-13-2010 8:12 PM


Illogical
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 8:12 PM Pauline has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2820 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 116 of 128 (550281)
03-14-2010 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Pauline
03-13-2010 8:12 PM


Hey! I'm Standing Right Here
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 8:12 PM Pauline has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6006
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 117 of 128 (550292)
03-14-2010 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IchiBan
03-11-2010 3:21 AM


Isn't this classic
Whines and moans then never participates in the thread.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IchiBan, posted 03-11-2010 3:21 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6006
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 118 of 128 (550294)
03-14-2010 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Pauline
03-11-2010 1:54 PM


Re: Oh, And By The Way
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.

ABE
Saw 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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 1:54 PM Pauline has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 119 of 128 (550295)
03-14-2010 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Pauline
03-13-2010 11:10 PM


Hey Doc
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Pauline, posted 03-13-2010 11:10 PM Pauline has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6006
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 120 of 128 (550298)
03-14-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Pauline
03-11-2010 7:26 PM


Your hypocisy astounds me
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 7:26 PM Pauline has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019