Using the Bible as fact...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Maybe someone can give me an explanation?"
--As a Bible Thumping YEC, I'd like to give some input. Basically if you were to argue with myself, your argument would be greatly flawed. Simply on the basis that I have never found the need to resort to any argument that requires a scientific mind-set. accept ofcourse for the bits and pieces that make the Christian faith a faith such as the ressurection, the universal creation, Noahs Boat (not noahs flood, but his boat that was in the flood requires a biblical based faith), ect. Basically, the way I look at it, is an ancient document that you compair and contrast with todays scientific observations and I myself find that it is amazingly compatable and accurate. Pretty much, its that the bible isn't to complement science, but science is to complement the bible. Hope this helps.

​

---

TC,This then begs the question, what method, if not the scientific method, would be better at finding the most likely theoretical truth? Since you think that your flood "model" is a better model than mainstrean geologies explanations. Something that explains LESS observations? Something that ignores inconvenient observations?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-27-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"This then begs the question, what method, if not the scientific method, would be better at finding the most likely theoretical truth?"
--The scientific method is best in a scientific case, that is, anything where science can have any input.

​

"Since you think that your flood "model" is a better model than mainstrean geologies explanations."
--Thats my 'opinion'.

​

"Something that explains LESS observations? Something that ignores inconvenient observations?"
--Something that is in the process of explination is hardly untennable on the basis of coming to the conclusion of being unable to explain something that has not been attempted. (I'm in the process of explaining, basically, I am attempting an explination that mainstream geology has gone through for many years).

​

---

What is wrong with using the scientific method on the bible, as an attempt to establish its "factual" accuracy. It could be done, although I doubt you would like the results. My point is, you require a level of "proof" from science that you don't require from the bible. This is hypocritical. Why not have pure, baseless, faith in Odin & blow God out? There's no evidence for either, so I'm questioning the mental integrity of someone who believes something without reason, & disbelieves something else which has as much basis in fact as what they believe.How, then, can you/anyone attempt to maintain "factual" biblical integrity when a rigorous method is being applied to science, & people deny that science in favour of faith, with no sound basis whatsoever? Do you not find it hypocritical that in every other aspect of christians (or any other religion) lives they require evidence?For example, you don't have "faith" that crossing a busy road with your fingers in your ears & your eyes shut will get you safely to the other side, because you have evidence that heavy objects kill when they hit you at speed.You don't have baseless "faith" that you would drown swimming from Java to California, you have evidence based on observations that it would be foolish to attempt such a swim.You wouldn't want a person accused of a crime to be convicted without reason, or is "faith" reason enough to believe in a persons guilt, since it is allowed in explanations of origins?So, it seems hypocritical to me that this sound mental attitude, which you use in every other aspect of your life should be suspended because it is inconvenient to a notion of a factually baseless God.That said, what method would you apply universally to everything to determine its likelyhood, if it isn't the scientific method or something like it? To apply such a method to something, & not something else, is by definition, hypocritical.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

TC,Do you find it hypocritical that evidential determinants are sought by us all through our lives in order to make decisions, but this "modus operandi" is suspended where religion is concerned, or not?Whether it is scienctific deciding how you cross the road is irrelevent. The scientific method is designed to best get at the most likely explanation. This is exactly what we do when we try to decide what gossip to believe, or what newspaper article to believe. You're arguing that a rationale for deciding the most likely explanation is best suited to science, & only science? Nonsense, you apply a similar rationale to every non-religious decision you make.What, intellectually, allows you to suspend this rationale, in the light that you use an evidence as a determinant for decision making in other areas of life?Mark(away 4 weekend)------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Do you find it hypocritical that evidential determinants are sought by us all through our lives in order to make decisions, but this "modus operandi" is suspended where religion is concerned, or not?"
--This is not exactly true, as I explained above, I explained what should and should not apply the scientific method. You would be correct, however, that pure faith events, concepts, or anything of the like shouldn't be decided by applying the scientific method, simply because it is not applicable on scientific grounds.

---

OK, I’m not making myself clear. Forget the scientific method, I used it as an example.Do you find it intellectually hypocritical to apply one evidence based method of truth finding to one aspect of your life, but suspend it for another, because it won’t give the required results?Faith is irrelevant. This is precisely what such a method tries to determine against, & for the greater part of your/our decision making, does. That is to say, we try to make/perform informed decisions & actions.If there’s no evidence of pink fairies, then ignore the possibility of the existence of pink fairies until evidence of their existence becomes available, or do you believe in pink fairies AND God?You see what I’m getting at? If you’re going to believe in something with no evidence, you are then logically obliged to believe in everything with no evidence, non? No? Why not, isn’t this reasonable?
Clearly you don't believe in pink fairies, so why God? What evidential rationale have you applied to both scenarios? I suspect you simply haven't applied the same rationale to pink fairies & God. I ask, why not? Faith? Not really good enough, you can have faith in pink fairies but you don't. So what REASON do you have for faith in something without evidence, compared to something else without evidence that you don't have faith in?Mark

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"OK, I’m not making myself clear. Forget the scientific method, I used it as an example."
--Allright then.

​

"Do you find it intellectually hypocritical to apply one evidence based method of truth finding to one aspect of your life, but suspend it for another, because it won’t give the required results?"
--Hm, I seem to not be fully understanding what you are implying, possibly an example on your inquisition?

---

Not putting your hand in boiling water to get that egg out. Not crossing a busy road with your eyes shut & your fingers in your ears. Not taking a shortcut off of a tall building by jumping off & expecting to be OK at the bottom. Not doing electrical work with wet hands. Driving the CORRECT way down a motorway/freeway. Holding a cup of tea/coffee level so it doesn’t spill. Cooking chicken all the way through. Not drying your pets in the microwave, especially after washing them in the washing machine. The list goes on, any boring, mundane thing you do that you draw from your own experience (evidence) qualifies.So, do you find it intellectually hypocritical to apply one evidence based method of truth finding to one aspect of your life (& apply it), but suspend it for another?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Faith is irrelevant. This is precisely what such a method tries to determine against, & for the greater part of your/our decision making, does. That is to say, we try to make/perform informed decisions & actions."
--Yes, but science cannot apply to something that it cannot use within the boudaries of logic or anything you can test, or experiment on.

---

But we left science behind, didn’t we? We’re not talking science. We’re talking about taking actions/decisions based on evidence, something as mundane as holding a coffee cup level so it doesn’t spill qualifies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"If there’s no evidence of pink fairies, then ignore the possibility of the existence of pink fairies until evidence of their existence becomes available, or do you believe in pink fairies AND God?"
--This is where faith stands, it is a subjective belief given to the wordly order, it is out of the realm of science or experimentation, or even a test of existance. There is no direct evidence of pink fairies or God, yes. What there is, however, is indirect evidence, which is where I give God the glory.

---

And I am questioning your rationale for having faith in faith. Why, When you use evidence in every other aspect of your life? Explain to me why it is rational to have faith in faith, but not faith in jumping off a building & flying, without saying something tantamount to I have faith because I have faith, or repeat that faith is outside science, which I’m not arguing anyway. It is the REASON you have that faith in faith I am after.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"You see what I’m getting at? If you’re going to believe in something with no evidence, you are then logically obliged to believe in everything with no evidence, non? No? Why not, isn’t this reasonable?"
--Slightly reasonable in a scence, though seemingly forgetting something, see above.

---

Forgetting what?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Clearly you don't believe in pink fairies, so why God? What evidential rationale have you applied to both scenarios? I suspect you simply haven't applied the same rationale to pink fairies & God. I ask, why not? Faith? Not really good enough, you can have faith in pink fairies but you don't. So what REASON do you have for faith in something without evidence, compared to something else without evidence that you don't have faith in?"
--I give the credit of existance of the universe and everything in it, It is basically my amazment at its workings, not to mention the book that I believe he inspired to document earth history, I find it compatable with observation. As the pink fairy does not have this same credibility, unless ofcourse you would like to apply Godly attributes to the pink fairy and make up your own God or something of that nature.

​

---

Well, why don’t you believe the pink fairy is God, then? You have no evidence for either, so how can you possibly determine if there is one God, or many pink fairies? What evidential REASON do you base your faith in? What evidential REASON do you believe the bible was inspired by God, & not many pink fairies?You seem to be very fond of evidence, & are happy to use it against people when it suits, yet switch off the requirement for it when applied to your own deity. This is hypocritical.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.