Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation, Evolution, and faith
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 137 of 456 (554603)
04-09-2010 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Peepul
04-09-2010 8:20 AM


The sources of information about God do include observations of the natural world
What would those observations be? Can you point out one of these observations that do not have a natural explanation? The evidence for a god and faith is 100% subjective. Yes there is some subjectivity in science, but that is backed(in good science)with objective evidence. Objective evidence is missing in the god faith scenario completely.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Peepul, posted 04-09-2010 8:20 AM Peepul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Peepul, posted 04-09-2010 8:52 AM Theodoric has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 139 of 456 (554609)
04-09-2010 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Peepul
04-09-2010 8:52 AM


But only if you believe in him - I agree with you that the natural world doesn't provide evidence that he exists.
But you seem to think that scientific evidence is equal to theological reasoning.
Both scientific and theological reasoning make fundamental assumptions that cannot be validated, as KBertsche has pointed out. Science assumes there is an objective world, that our studies give us genuine information about that objective world, and that it is legitimate to extrapolate behaviour from known examples to unknown examples, with appropriate care.
Is there any evidence that this is not an objective world? I find this argument curious. Why is an objective world something that can not be validated? Can I not trust any of my senses? Do you think math and mathematical models may be being manipulated by something? This seems like a very "out there", matrixy argument, with no basis in logic or evidence. In other words an argument using totally subjective ideas and no evidence.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Peepul, posted 04-09-2010 8:52 AM Peepul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Peepul, posted 04-09-2010 11:56 AM Theodoric has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 168 of 456 (554687)
04-09-2010 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Flyer75
04-09-2010 1:39 PM


I call BS on this.
No one doubts the existence of Pontius Pilate. But this in no way validates the bible.
If you read this link, you'll see that other things have been found, such as written letters confirming that Pilate had Jesus crucified just as the Bible says.
Letters? Do you mean Tacitus, written over 50 years after the event? This is no evidence for anything.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Flyer75, posted 04-09-2010 1:39 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Flyer75, posted 04-09-2010 3:03 PM Theodoric has replied
 Message 175 by Flyer75, posted 04-09-2010 3:20 PM Theodoric has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 176 of 456 (554697)
04-09-2010 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Flyer75
04-09-2010 3:03 PM


I was wrong about Tacitus. He wrote in the 2nd decade of the 2nd century. That would 90 years after. Post the first gospels.
There is no contemporary corroboration of the christ of the bible. Tacitus is not contemporary, Josephus is not contemporary(and probably did not even write the pro-christ comments attributed to him). Show me something contemporary. Anything. Just in Martyr was even later than Tacitus. He wrote mid 2nd century.
None of these people help your argument.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Flyer75, posted 04-09-2010 3:03 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Flyer75, posted 04-09-2010 3:35 PM Theodoric has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 178 of 456 (554699)
04-09-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Flyer75
04-09-2010 3:20 PM


Well, I hate to use Huntard's argument on this, but I will. So letters written 200 years ago from John Adams to his wife Abigail aren't evidence of events that happened around them? Any historian shy of a conspiracy theorist counts these letters, over 200 years old, to be historically reliable.
What a stupid argument. John and Abigail were writing about events contemporary to them. They were not writing about events 90-150 yeas in the past.
Fail. Try again.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Flyer75, posted 04-09-2010 3:20 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Flyer75, posted 04-09-2010 3:55 PM Theodoric has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 183 of 456 (554707)
04-09-2010 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Flyer75
04-09-2010 3:35 PM


then why do you believe that Galileo invented the telescope 400 years ago?
Again another appallingly stupid argument. Contemporary corroborating evidence. We have the writings of Galileo, we have a multitude of writings by contemporaries, we have church history. For Jesus Christ we have nothing. There is NOTHING contemporary. Nothing in the Roman archives, nothing in the histories written during the period. No writings of Jesus or anyone that knew him. Nothing.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Flyer75, posted 04-09-2010 3:35 PM Flyer75 has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 184 of 456 (554708)
04-09-2010 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Flyer75
04-09-2010 3:55 PM


It burns.
You truly think these are actual arguments. We are not going to get anywhere. You truly think the speed of light is analogous to the dead sea scrolls?
There is a difference. If you can not see there is a difference then it isn't worth wasting my time.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Flyer75, posted 04-09-2010 3:55 PM Flyer75 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Taq, posted 04-09-2010 4:06 PM Theodoric has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 190 of 456 (554715)
04-09-2010 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Flyer75
04-09-2010 4:07 PM


I have the Bible, written by his contemporaries for that evidence,
No it wasn't. When was the first gospel written? Post 70 CE. When was the supposed crucifixion? Ca 30 CE. Unless you have a different definition than that is not contemporary.
In your world Barack Obama is a contemporary of JFK.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Flyer75, posted 04-09-2010 4:07 PM Flyer75 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by slevesque, posted 04-09-2010 5:56 PM Theodoric has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 191 of 456 (554716)
04-09-2010 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by nwr
04-09-2010 4:15 PM


Re: Invention of telescope
Great point. I was so caught up in the lame argument I missed that important part.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by nwr, posted 04-09-2010 4:15 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 253 of 456 (555029)
04-11-2010 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by slevesque
04-10-2010 3:17 PM


Re: Huh!?
And we know Jesus caused a turmoil in their ranks, and that they judged him.
No we don't. All we have is the bible. There are no Jewish or Roman records to corroborate this.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by slevesque, posted 04-10-2010 3:17 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by slevesque, posted 04-12-2010 1:59 PM Theodoric has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 259 of 456 (555158)
04-12-2010 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by slevesque
04-12-2010 1:59 PM


Re: Huh!?
Again I ask do you have any non-biblical contemporary corroborating evidence?
I have no belief that Jesus existed as a person. There is no evidence other than the bible. All later evidence goes back to the biblical writings. There is nothing in the Roman or Jewish records of the period. Nothing.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by slevesque, posted 04-12-2010 1:59 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by AZPaul3, posted 04-12-2010 3:15 PM Theodoric has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 414 of 456 (558672)
05-03-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 413 by nwr
05-03-2010 6:32 PM


Re: "Shared Subjectivity" - What Do You Mean Exactly?
Straggler writes:
You expect me to come up with examples of your position?
All you would need is already there in Message 383
First of all I fixed your attribution for the quote.
Secondly, I have read Message 383 3 times now and have the same question as Straggler.
Can you give an example of what you mean by "shared objectivity" or not?
I don't know what's bothering you. But you sure seem to like to conduct heresy trials against anyone who says something that disagrees with your own rigid orthodoxy.
That's a great way of providing ammunition for those who say that atheism is a religion.
WTF? All he is asking for is for you to define your phrase. Either define it and give an example or withdraw it and STFU.
It is a simple question. So far you have made no real answers and have been evasive and ambiguous. I am going to have to side with Straggler on this that you seem to be just using a cool sounding phrase. It means nothing if you cannot define what it is supposed to mean.
Edited by Theodoric, : Accidentally submitted before preview

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by nwr, posted 05-03-2010 6:32 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by nwr, posted 05-03-2010 7:26 PM Theodoric has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 416 of 456 (558678)
05-03-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by nwr
05-03-2010 7:26 PM


Re: "Shared Subjectivity" - What Do You Mean Exactly?
Ok Strag had a typo. But playing stupid doesn't help your case, you must know what he meant.
From you.
Some (including me) would argue that objectivity is just shared subjectivity anyway.
bolded for emphasis
Message 383
You brought it up. Define it and give an example so we know how you define it. Saying objectivity is shared subjectivity does nothing.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by nwr, posted 05-03-2010 7:26 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by nwr, posted 05-03-2010 8:20 PM Theodoric has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 421 of 456 (558777)
05-04-2010 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by Straggler
05-04-2010 9:57 AM


Re: "Shared Subjectivity" - What Do You Mean Exactly?
I think at this point it is safe to assume that he has no idea what he means by it. I would think it would be very simple for him to give us a clear example so that we do not have to sit hear and guess. Since he can not give an example it seems it was just a couple words that he felt sounded could when combined.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Straggler, posted 05-04-2010 9:57 AM Straggler has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 427 of 456 (558816)
05-04-2010 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by nwr
05-04-2010 12:38 PM


Re: "Shared Subjectivity" - What Do You Mean Exactly?
One would think that after all the inquiries you could write a post that ahs a coherent definition and a simple example.
You keep making bizarre claims about off-topic, but we a re just attempting to get a clarification so we can know what the hell you meant.
If we do not understand what you are saying then it is necessary for us to ask for a clarification. It is then incumbent upon you to clarify.
Let me give you a hint. Evidently your previous posts did not clarify it for us, so quite referring back to them. We are not stupid.
Can you give a definition and an example of "shared subjectivity" ot not?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by nwr, posted 05-04-2010 12:38 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by nwr, posted 05-04-2010 7:03 PM Theodoric 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