Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 207 of 244 (888519)
09-19-2021 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Christian7
09-19-2021 3:17 PM


quote:
I know that some of my arguments may be defective
You may be giving yourself too much credit. It seems to me that all of your arguments are defective or worse.
For example trying to “prove” that there was no contradiction between Deuteronomy and Jeremiah by listing two other examples of scripture contradicting Deuteronomy. I think that calling that “defective” would be understating the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 3:17 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 217 of 244 (888543)
09-20-2021 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Christian7
09-20-2021 10:18 AM


Re: Request for reconciliation of beliefs and recommendation of books
quote:
I have not by this time learned new things, whereby my disputing may cast down every claim of yours by knowledge, but I have increased the knowledge of science within me, through the reading of the theory you affirm, which though it intrigues me, I do not believe, by reason of my faith in the Word of God.
No, your faith is in men who tell you that the Genesis stories are the word of God and tell you that God meant them literally - and who try to gloss over the disagreements (have you noticed how the story starting in Genesis 2 portrays a much smaller God, than Genesis 1, that it’s much more like a pagan myth?).
I don’t think those men are worthy of such trust.
quote:
But I ask you this: if they agree: if you can somehow show they agree for my sake, that I may believe the word of God, and yet not disbelieve science. But if it is clear that they disagree, then the word of God, in that my faith will remain.
If you insist that the Genesis stories are literally true then they do not agree well with science. There are concordists around who try to find agreement but if you want to speak to them I think you should try elsewhere - like the Peaceful Science forum.
Or perhaps Kenneth Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God might be of interest (although I haven’t read it)
quote:
I ask you also, although to further my knowledge of logic, already have I begun, what books would supply my mind with clearer thinking. For many books I have read on style, but none on how to think.
I would suggest that the first thing to do is to explain your points. Quoting a Few Bible verses without any explanation, for instance, is not good for anyone - and when you seem unable to explain when asked, I’d say you have a problem.
I think your problem is that you put conclusions first, and your thinking is just attempting to find excuses to dismiss anything that threatens them. That is no way to understand or to find the truth.
Start with the facts - and make sure that they are actual facts - before coming to conclusions.
For instance it’s a fact that not one book of the Bible explicitly claims to be the Word of God. You’ll find that some books have God speaking as a character in the story and some books have messages that are claimed to come from God. But always there is more to the text which makes no such claim. Think about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Christian7, posted 09-20-2021 10:18 AM Christian7 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 239 of 244 (888590)
09-22-2021 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Christian7
09-22-2021 11:28 AM


Re: gobbledygook
Firstly, introducing unclear terms without explanation is not a good idea. “Things indivisible” has no clear meaning at all.
The fundamental problem of the argument is that it is rooted in ignorance. Not your personal ignorance - nobody understands where consciousness comes from or how it works - at all. Simply insisting that it can’t be produced by physical objects when we lack that understanding is guessing. We don’t know.
The evidence we do have indicates that the operation of the brain does produce the mind. You assert that there is no evidence of that - but does that mean that you are aware of and can refute the main lines of evidence ? If not, that is a very presumptuous assertion, and one you should not make.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Christian7, posted 09-22-2021 11:28 AM Christian7 has 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