Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-16-2019 10:18 PM
27 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, Meddle, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,846 Year: 11,882/19,786 Month: 1,663/2,641 Week: 172/708 Day: 39/67 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
25Next
Author Topic:   A Way to Think About Free Will and God: Open Theism
ringo
Member
Posts: 16806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 286 of 374 (846408)
01-05-2019 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Thugpreacha
01-05-2019 4:10 PM


Re: Calling evil good or good evil.
Phat writes:

Having an agenda in and of itself is not a disqualifier.


I didn't say it was. I said it makes literature unreliable as historical evidence.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-05-2019 4:10 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 287 of 374 (846410)
01-05-2019 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Thugpreacha
01-05-2019 4:14 PM


Re: Calling evil good or good evil.
Phat writes:

It takes different amounts of evidence to convince different people.


That's a bad attitude to start with. Some people don't need any evidence at all to be convinced and some people are too eager to grasp at the first straws that might support their desired outcome.

Phat writes:

... the absence of evidence is not a precondition towards evidence of absence.


When somebody claims that there "is" historical evidence, the absence of evidence definitely IS significant.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-05-2019 4:14 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6950
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 288 of 374 (846411)
01-05-2019 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Thugpreacha
01-05-2019 3:20 PM


Re: Science Goes To Church
Phat writes:

Of course! That's the essence of free will.

Making shit up is the essence of fiction Phat.

You may argue that i'm simply making stuff up...which is a hard one to challenge. Im working on it though!

Given that you did actually make it up, there's nothing much to work on is there? I mean, you can't point to any other source can you? You're talking yourself into something.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-05-2019 3:20 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4910
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 289 of 374 (846421)
01-05-2019 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by ringo
01-05-2019 3:38 PM


Re: Calling evil good or good evil.
ringo writes:

A bigger pile of unreliable evidence doesn't make it more reliable. And of course each source was compiled by individuals with their own agenda and the canon was compiled by people with an agenda. I'd say that that adds up to a lot less than "historical evidence".

Of course it is historical evidence. What you are talking about is its reliability.

ringo writes:

That isn't the only way that science repudiates the resurrection. As far as science is concerned, the resurrection is as impossible as the Flood, as impossible as Jesus flying up to heaven by flapping His arms.

I have agreed that if the resurrection is historical then it happened outside of the laws of known science. Your point is that the laws of science are immutable and as a result resurrection is impossible.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by ringo, posted 01-05-2019 3:38 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by NosyNed, posted 01-05-2019 5:28 PM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 294 by Percy, posted 01-05-2019 5:47 PM GDR has responded
 Message 316 by ringo, posted 01-07-2019 10:47 AM GDR has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8848
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 290 of 374 (846422)
01-05-2019 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by GDR
01-05-2019 5:23 PM


Evidence or Not
Of course it is historical evidence. What you are talking about is its reliability.

With you I can agree on this. A robin singing in spring is evidence. Anything can be pulled in as evidence.

Reliability is one of the things to consider, of course.

The other is relevance. It would take amazing mind contortions to make my robin relevant evidence in this contest.

I'd say to Ringo, the bible is evidence. It seems to be the only relevant evidence. It's reliability is on very shaky ground though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by GDR, posted 01-05-2019 5:23 PM GDR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Percy, posted 01-05-2019 7:46 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18583
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 291 of 374 (846423)
01-05-2019 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by GDR
01-05-2019 3:43 PM


Re: Calling evil good or good evil.
GDR writes:

percy writes:

You can't it both ways, both historical and faith driven. The resurrection is a core religious belief of Christianity, not history.

Of course it can be had both ways. I believe by faith that the resurrection is an historical event.

You're talking nonsense. You can believe by faith that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree, but that doesn't turn it into a historical event. Faith is the last resort of those with no evidence. Actual historical events leave evidence behind. This shouldn't have to be explained.

percy writes:

As you said, this is what you believe on faith. It isn't reality. The laws of science were never suspended. Nothing violating the laws of science has ever been shown to happen.

The Gospels say that you are wrong.

So what? The gospels (lowercase) are something you accept on faith, not evidence. You said so yourself. Harry Potter says I'm wrong about magic. So does The Lord of the Rings. Again, so what?

Percy writes:

Well, yes, of course, in the same way that science can't be used to repudiate or confirm Harry Potter. There's no evidence to confirm or repudiate, plus it violates known laws of science, plus it's obviously religious which places it in the same grabbag of fantastical claims with other religions.

So what? One can be right and the others wrong, they can all be right or they can all be wrong. One thing they do agree on and that is that there is a deity.

Well, actually, they don't agree about "there is a deity" either. Some religions have multiple deities. All religions are attestations without evidence, and such can be dismissed without evidence.

Percy writes:

You can have a favorite religion. Yours happens to be Christianity, others Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judasim or any of a number of others. All their beliefs are based upon faith. None of these religions are historical or factual or scientific when it comes to things like resurrections.

If you are talking about miracles,...

I am talking about any evidence-free claim, but sure, miracles, too.

I have never claimed that they are scientific but that has nothing to do as to whether or not they are factual or historic.

If they have no evidence then they are neither factual nor historical. And if they are scientifically impossible plus just a religious claim, whose contrived nature is well established, then all you've got is faith in miracles. And there's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is making false claims that evidence-based fields like history and science provide any support for faith-based ideas.

Percy writes:

You just finished saying that the resurrection being historical has to be accepted on faith, which means you have no objective evidence that the resurrection is historical. Objectively Christianity is a false religion (so are all the others) - it can only be accepted on faith, which is as it should be. All those who march off to objectively prove their religion are on a fool's errand.

I'm not trying to prove anything.

Sure you are. You're trying to prove the gospels historical, but finding it a tough go for lack of evidence.

I do have objective evidence in the physical writings in the Gospels,...

This vague statement isn't going to confuse anyone but you. The gospels (lowercase) contain no objective evidence for their religious claims.

I do however by faith form a subjective view as to their veracity.

Yes, exactly. By faith, not by evidence. Subjective, not objective. Religious (with all that entails), not secular.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by GDR, posted 01-05-2019 3:43 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by GDR, posted 01-05-2019 6:09 PM Percy has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8848
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 292 of 374 (846424)
01-05-2019 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by GDR
01-05-2019 3:43 PM


All right?
...they can all be right ...

They disagree so they can not be all right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by GDR, posted 01-05-2019 3:43 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by GDR, posted 01-05-2019 6:29 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4258
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 293 of 374 (846425)
01-05-2019 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Thugpreacha
01-05-2019 4:14 PM


Re: Calling evil good or good evil.
Science has little evidence to work within this case ...

Uhh, no. The evidence in the science of a resurrection is quite abundant, specific and conclusive. Literally trillions of organisms, billions of them human, testify to the paucity of resurrection. None. The workings of this universe, so well studied, tested, and confirmed, testify to the invalidity of the physics of resurrection claims.

You can deny the science and its veto power over such majik but all this does is show the same delusional desperation Faith shows with here flud.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-05-2019 4:14 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18583
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 294 of 374 (846426)
01-05-2019 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by GDR
01-05-2019 5:23 PM


Re: Calling evil good or good evil.
GDR writes:

Of course it is historical evidence.

No, it is scripture, with all that entails. Scripture isn't history. (Of course that doesn't mean scripture can't have a historical backdrop, such as being set in real places like Jerusalem or mentioning actual historical personages like Herod the Great or Pontius Pilate.)

What you are talking about is its reliability.

We are saying it isn't history, it is scripture. You can no more talk about the reliability of Christian scripture than you can of Norse myths.

I have agreed that if the resurrection is historical then it happened outside of the laws of known science. Your point is that the laws of science are immutable and as a result resurrection is impossible.

I don't want to speak for Ringo, but I think our views are fairly similar. That the resurrection (assuming you believe Jesus was really dead for three days and then came back to life, and not that he wasn't really dead but the apostles just thought he was) violates science just makes it more clear that it is religion, whose strong tendency toward fantastical claims we understand very well. You'd like to believe that the nature of religion doesn't hold for the religion that you prefer, that unlike other religions Christianity's claims are actually true, nay, even historical. That you have to pick among the claims for what you think true and what you think not belies this.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by GDR, posted 01-05-2019 5:23 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by GDR, posted 01-05-2019 6:50 PM Percy has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4910
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 295 of 374 (846427)
01-05-2019 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Percy
01-05-2019 5:29 PM


The Gospels as evidence
Percy writes:

You're talking nonsense. You can believe by faith that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree, but that doesn't turn it into a historical event. Faith is the last resort of those with no evidence. Actual historical events leave evidence behind. This shouldn't have to be explained.

There is evidence left behind. The NT. Let's look at Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. It only happened once. The only evidence is what we have written. All we have are written accounts and subjectively we can accept or reject the accounts.

As I said to ringo, the real argument is not the fact that the Gospels are evidence but how reliable we consider the evidence.

Percy writes:

So what? The gospels (lowercase) are something you accept on faith, not evidence.

We both keep repeating what we have already said. The Gospels are evidence and I accept the veracity of the accounts of the resurrection by faith.

Percy writes:

What is wrong is making false claims that evidence-based fields like history and science provide any support for faith-based ideas.

Science provides no support. However the fact that the early church rose in circumstances that would strongly dictate against it without the resurrection, is historical evidence.

Percy writes:

Sure you are. You're trying to prove the gospels historical, but finding it a tough go for lack of evidence.

Why keep using the word "prove". I have stated categorically several times that there is no proof, and that it can't be proven. I don't think I can be any clearer.

Percy writes:

The gospels (lowercase) contain no objective evidence for their religious claims.

I agree. However we do objectively know that the Gospels exist. Two of them clearly state that they were compiled in order to provide an account of the facts. We know that objectively. We subjectively form our own conclusions about their veracity and by faith, not knowledge, we accept our conclusions.
Cheers

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Percy, posted 01-05-2019 5:29 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Percy, posted 01-06-2019 10:11 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4910
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 296 of 374 (846429)
01-05-2019 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by NosyNed
01-05-2019 5:32 PM


Re: All right?
NosyNed writes:

They disagree so they can not be all right.

You're right of course. I think though in comparing the texts of various religions I suggest that it is better to start with what they agree about. I said to Percy that they all have a deity and Percy correctly pointed out that some have multiple deities. I would add of course that Buddhism isn't really theistic but it doesn't reject theism either.

As I said earlier they all, with again the possible exception of Buddhism, accept a divine power and they all include the "Golden Rule'. Those are fundamental theistic beliefs and are even held in common with secular beliefs. I would add though, that secular acceptance of the Golden Rule arose from the period when the whole world was theistic.

Also I would say that as a Christian I should be open to hearing what people of other faiths have to say, and even pay attention to the incessant rantings of the atheistic crowd.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by NosyNed, posted 01-05-2019 5:32 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4910
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 297 of 374 (846430)
01-05-2019 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Percy
01-05-2019 5:47 PM


Re: Calling evil good or good evil.
Percy writes:

I don't want to speak for Ringo, but I think our views are fairly similar. That the resurrection (assuming you believe Jesus was really dead for three days and then came back to life, and not that he wasn't really dead but the apostles just thought he was) violates science just makes it more clear that it is religion, whose strong tendency toward fantastical claims we understand very well. You'd like to believe that the nature of religion doesn't hold for the religion that you prefer, that unlike other religions Christianity's claims are actually true, nay, even historical. That you have to pick among the claims for what you think true and what you think not belies this.

First off I firmly believe that Jesus was dead. I don't believe that He came back to life as we know it. I believe that the resurrected Jesus was experienced in a body that bridged our universe and God's universe.

I haven't commented on the claims of other religions and I have already stated that there are things that are consistent. If we read the first part of the Book of Buddha we find essentially the same social message proclaimed by Jesus. I am quite prepared to accept that it was a revelation from God. I have put a lot of time into understanding the concept of resurrection in its historical Jewish context. I haven't put that same time into other religious claims so I won't offer an opinion one way or the other.

The claims of the miraculous in other religions, whether historical or not, has nothing to do with the claim of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Percy, posted 01-05-2019 5:47 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by AZPaul3, posted 01-05-2019 7:52 PM GDR has responded
 Message 315 by Percy, posted 01-06-2019 8:14 PM GDR has responded
 Message 317 by ringo, posted 01-07-2019 11:04 AM GDR has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18583
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 298 of 374 (846431)
01-05-2019 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by NosyNed
01-05-2019 5:28 PM


Re: Evidence or Not
NosyNed writes:

I'd say to Ringo, the bible is evidence.

Of its religious claims? Given the clear nature of religion? If the Bible is evidence of Christianity's religious views then wouldn't any writing be evidence, including obvious fiction?

We went down the "everything is evidence" path in another thread. That way lies madness, in the sense that the discussion is endless and leads nowhere. If we learned anything from that thread it's that evidence is specific. You can't just say you've have evidence the way GDR keeps saying, "The gospels are evidence." Just what are they specifically evidence of, and what is that evidence. Just saying Harry Potter is evidence or Lysistrata is evidence is meaningless. They might contain evidence, like Harry Potter containing evidence that London is a real place or Lysistrata having evidence that the Peloponnesian war actually occurred, but just saying they're evidence is an empty claim.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by NosyNed, posted 01-05-2019 5:28 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4258
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 299 of 374 (846432)
01-05-2019 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by GDR
01-05-2019 6:50 PM


Re: Calling evil good or good evil.
I believe that the resurrected Jesus was experienced in a body that bridged our universe and God's universe.

Well, that's new. At lease to me.

Again, this looks and smells a lot like one of Faith's made-up processes when the evidence against her flud gets too deep. Now you can escape the impediment reality puts on the viability of resurrection by claiming Jesus was not resurrected as a human but as a ghost.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by GDR, posted 01-05-2019 6:50 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by GDR, posted 01-05-2019 8:28 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4910
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 300 of 374 (846434)
01-05-2019 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by AZPaul3
01-05-2019 7:52 PM


Re: Calling evil good or good evil.
AZPaul3 writes:

Well, that's new. At lease to me.
Again, this looks and smells a lot like one of Faith's made-up processes when the evidence against her flud gets too deep. Now you can escape the impediment reality puts on the viability of resurrection by claiming Jesus was not resurrected as a human but as a ghost.


I did not say as a ghost. The resurrected Jesus was physical. He ate fish and could be touched. However, He also was different in a variety of ways. The message is that it was a renewed physicality.

To go back we have to remember that Jesus was a Jew immersed in Jewish culture. If the Jews wanted to be forgiven their misdoings they went to the Temple, gave sacrifices and could be forgiven. The Temple, and particularly the Holy of Holies was Godís place on Earth. It was the point in our space and time that God resided. It was where Godís world connected or intersected with our world. That was the Jewish belief.

Jesus came along as a counter-Temple movement. He simply forgave sin and made statements that He desired mercy and not sacrifice. He is saying that the place where Godís world, (I have just updated it a bit by using universe instead of world), connected or intersected or world or universe was in Him, and that with the establishment of the Kingdom that the point of intersection between Godís universe and our own is in the hearts and minds of those that love the message of love of God as embodied by Jesus.

Ultimately then the message is that Jesus was the first born of the new creation or the renewal of all things. Paul puts it this way in Ephesians 1.

quote:
9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillmentóto bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by AZPaul3, posted 01-05-2019 7:52 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Tangle, posted 01-06-2019 3:33 AM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 302 by AZPaul3, posted 01-06-2019 7:52 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
25Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019