Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,177 Year: 5,434/9,624 Month: 459/323 Week: 99/204 Day: 15/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Whether to leave this forum or not
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 106 of 307 (655563)
03-11-2012 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by foreveryoung
03-11-2012 1:54 PM


Re: faith vs assumptions and knowledge by natural means
Well you start with a false assumption back in Message 88, that "The causal agents are presumed because nothing but an agent with mentality would give different results or no results at all when given the same initial conditions."
Until you provide testable evidence that nothing but an agent with mentality is requited required the proper answer is "I don't know".
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by foreveryoung, posted 03-11-2012 1:54 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by foreveryoung, posted 03-11-2012 2:12 PM jar has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 96 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 107 of 307 (655564)
03-11-2012 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by shadow71
03-11-2012 12:51 PM


My point is that metaphysical naturalists, such as Dawkins, do rule out the possibility of supernatural, and therefore must have faith in the natural.
quote:
I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low
quote:
Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist
quote:
There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?
Those are not the words of someone who rules out the possibility of the supernatural.
On the other hand, metaphysical supernaturalists often rule out the possibility that the universe can be explained without recourse to supernatural entities.
Finally, the mere fact that someone lacks faith in one thing does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that they have faith in something else - as you imply.
{they rule out the supernatural}...and therefore must have faith in the natural.
Nope. If they believe in natural explanations or entities without any evidence would they have 'faith' in the natural. Where 'faith' means 'a belief in spite of or in lieu of supporting evidence'. They have faith in a different sense of the word: trust. In direct contrast to religious faith, the faith of the naturalist grows stronger the more evidence supporting the position can be found.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by shadow71, posted 03-11-2012 12:51 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by shadow71, posted 03-11-2012 7:02 PM Modulous has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 693 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(1)
Message 108 of 307 (655565)
03-11-2012 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by jar
03-11-2012 1:57 PM


Re: Fool me once
I have read the support somewhere for the authenticity of the current protestant cannon. A brief google already showed me some I have never read. There is a good reason to believe the current protestant cannon is supernaturally inspired. I am being honest. The first two books don't look contradictory to me. I know when I am being dishonest, and this isn't one of those times.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by jar, posted 03-11-2012 1:57 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 03-11-2012 2:17 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 03-11-2012 2:45 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied
 Message 122 by Jon, posted 03-11-2012 4:17 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 693 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 109 of 307 (655566)
03-11-2012 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by jar
03-11-2012 2:02 PM


Re: faith vs assumptions and knowledge by natural means
What other reason can you think of for the situation where you provide the exact same initial conditions and you get a different result everytime?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by jar, posted 03-11-2012 2:02 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 03-11-2012 2:19 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 117 by PaulK, posted 03-11-2012 2:42 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 693 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 110 of 307 (655567)
03-11-2012 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by RAZD
03-11-2012 1:58 PM


Re: sect vs sect
What???? You want to try and make your point again? I have glazed over eyes right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2012 1:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2012 5:09 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 111 of 307 (655568)
03-11-2012 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by foreveryoung
03-11-2012 2:10 PM


Re: Fool me once
One of the hardest things to do it to tell when we really are being honest with ourselves.
But go back and look at the two first books of Genesis and look at the order of creation, the methods of creation and the descriptions of the two very different gods portrayed.
But why is there any reason to think the "Protestant Canon" is any more "supernaturally inspired" than any of the others? After all, even the current Protestant Canon has evolved over time.
Was GOD unable to say "Here is the list of books to include!"?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by foreveryoung, posted 03-11-2012 2:10 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by foreveryoung, posted 03-11-2012 2:40 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 112 of 307 (655569)
03-11-2012 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by foreveryoung
03-11-2012 2:12 PM


Re: faith vs assumptions and knowledge by natural means
LOL
You put it in the "I don't know folder'.
"Insert supernatural here" leaves us as ignorant and it is far more honest to admit that we don't yet know the answer.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by foreveryoung, posted 03-11-2012 2:12 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by foreveryoung, posted 03-11-2012 2:31 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 693 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 113 of 307 (655570)
03-11-2012 2:29 PM


I just went to the other forum looking for the statistical evidence I was talking about. I found the member I remember that brought it up and had the links. I asked him to send them to me. They should be forthcoming within an hour I would think.

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Tangle, posted 03-11-2012 2:32 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 693 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 114 of 307 (655571)
03-11-2012 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by jar
03-11-2012 2:19 PM


Re: faith vs assumptions and knowledge by natural means
I didn't say that I knew it was a causal agent. It is much more honest to try and hypothesize what the likely cause of the phenomena to be. I gave you such an hypothesis and asked you to give me a better one. Instead of doing so, you mocked me and told me I was dishonest. Thanks a lot.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 03-11-2012 2:19 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 115 of 307 (655572)
03-11-2012 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by foreveryoung
03-11-2012 2:29 PM


There's no rush. The supernatural can wait :-)

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by foreveryoung, posted 03-11-2012 2:29 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 693 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 116 of 307 (655573)
03-11-2012 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by jar
03-11-2012 2:17 PM


Re: Fool me once
The first book gives an order of events from God's point of view. The second book gives a summary from adam's point of view. Nothing contradictory there. I would have to read the reasons for the protestant cannon being correct. I heard it in a sermon once but I have already forgot what it was. God doesn't just do things like "here is the list of books to include". You are assuming God works and thinks exactly like modern men do. I am being completely honesty with myself. There is very good reason for reading it like I do. I don't see different methods in the two books like you do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 03-11-2012 2:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 03-11-2012 2:48 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 03-11-2012 3:39 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17852
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 117 of 307 (655574)
03-11-2012 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by foreveryoung
03-11-2012 2:12 PM


Re: faith vs assumptions and knowledge by natural means
quote:
What other reason can you think of for the situation where you provide the exact same initial conditions and you get a different result everytime?
Chance. Intelligent agents don't choose different outcomes just for the sake of it. And if you can't EXACTLY replicate initial conditions even a chaotic system would be enough. Small differences in initial conditions can make a big difference in the final outcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by foreveryoung, posted 03-11-2012 2:12 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17852
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 118 of 307 (655575)
03-11-2012 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by foreveryoung
03-11-2012 2:10 PM


Re: Fool me once
quote:
I have read the support somewhere for the authenticity of the current protestant cannon. A brief google already showed me some I have never read. There is a good reason to believe the current protestant cannon is supernaturally inspired.
No, there isn't. In fact there is good reason to believe otherwise. But that's a subject for another thread. Really if you actually have what you think is "good evidence" produce it and we'll show that it isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by foreveryoung, posted 03-11-2012 2:10 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 119 of 307 (655576)
03-11-2012 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by foreveryoung
03-11-2012 2:40 PM


Re: Fool me once
HUH?
The actual order stuff was created does not depend on any POV.
The actual method used to create stuff does not depend on POV.
The much newer God in the younger Genesis 1 story is supremely competent, creating by will alone, never hesitant, never unsure but aloof, separate, overarching, not interacting with the creation, while the God in the much older Genesis 2&3 story is fumbling, creating by hand, learning on the job, sometimes unsure and afraid yet personable, intimate, directly interacting with the creation.
If you are taking the books literally point of view is irrelevant and the words must mean exactly what they say.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by foreveryoung, posted 03-11-2012 2:40 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22689
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 120 of 307 (655578)
03-11-2012 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by foreveryoung
03-11-2012 2:40 PM


Re: Fool me once
foreveryoung writes:
The first book gives an order of events from God's point of view. The second book gives a summary from adam's point of view
How can a literally inerrant Bible contain one account that is correct and another that is incorrect? Shouldn't both accounts agree and be correct?
Where in the Bible does it say that Genesis 2 is from Adam's point of view? How come the God and Science website doesn't know that Genesis 2 is from Adam's point of view?
Nothing contradictory there.
Just to pick out one thing that is contradictory, Genesis 1 says that man was created after the animals, while Genesis 2 says he was created before. Sounds like a contradiction to me.
One explanation offered for this specific contradiction is that God did create the animals before man, but when God needed to choose a helpmate for man he created more animals of the same kinds he had already created.
One can make up these kinds of explanations for any Biblical contradiction, but since the Bible doesn't actually resolve contradictions itself these explanations will vary from one apologist to the next, like the way that the God and Science website doesn't seem to agree with you that Genesis 2 is from Adam's point of view. These types of explanations have a name: post facto rationalizations.
I would have to read the reasons for the protestant cannon being correct. I heard it in a sermon once but I have already forgot what it was.
Guess it wasn't very compelling. All the other world's religions also have reasons why their canon (not cannon) is correct, and I think they're just as compelling.
God doesn't just do things like "here is the list of books to include".
How exactly was it determined just what God does and doesn't do?
You are assuming God works and thinks exactly like modern men do.
Well, then, tell us how you figured out exactly how God does work and think, which presumably you have done since you know that he doesn't work and think like us.
I am being completely honesty with myself.
<...mouthful of potato chips everywhere...>
As Feynman said, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
There is very good reason for reading it like I do. I don't see different methods in the two books like you do.
Funny, I didn't see any good reasons in your post, just a lot of wishful rationalizations.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by foreveryoung, posted 03-11-2012 2:40 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Buzsaw, posted 03-11-2012 8:15 PM Percy has seen this message but 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