|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 48 (9216 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,717 Year: 1,039/6,935 Month: 320/719 Week: 108/204 Day: 0/28 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Whether to leave this forum or not | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 161 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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 Edited by jar, : appalin spallinAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
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: quote: quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 904 days) Posts: 921 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 904 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 904 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
What???? You want to try and make your point again? I have glazed over eyes right now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 161 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 161 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 904 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 904 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9632 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
There's no rush. The supernatural can wait :-)
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 904 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18056 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18056 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 161 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23170 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025