I don't need to support what God said. What God said trumps all challenges of any sort. In a debate you either agree to accept your opponent's premise or not. My point is that this is the YEC's premise and if the debate is to have any pretense to fairness that premise must be accepted. As things stand this premise is denied across the board and the evolutionist assumption that it is all open to debate prevails, and that is stacking the deck against YECs. And this IS the evolutionists "insisting their position is sacrosanct" -- it should be obvious though you deny it as usual. It's a very simple point.
I don't need to support what God said. What God said trumps all challenges of any sort. In a debate you either agree to accept your opponent's premise or not.
My God tells me that your God does not exist, at least in the form you think.
My God tells me that the story of the creation can be learned by studying the created.
My God tells me that the Earth is billions of years old.
My God tells me that the "Great Flood" never happened.
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
So what? Those are your premises and you may require an opponent to accept them for a particular debate it seems to me, but what happens is that your premises are acceptable here and mine aren't so I am TACITLY required to accept yours while my own are consistently denied.
I'm spelling out the YEC premises and making the case that EvC rejects them a priori and that that is stacking the deck. Again, there may be no way to have them accepted within the parameters of the debate as conceived here. The fact remains that this IS the YEC premise and as long as it is rejected the debate is unfair.
Those are your premises and you may require an opponent to accept them for a particular debate it seems to me, but what happens is that your premises are acceptable here and mine aren't so I am TACITLY required to accept yours while my own are consistently denied.
Neither "the premises" of what "your God" said, nor "the premises" of what "my God" said are required to be accepted in the pursuit of empirical investigation.
No, Faith, the problem is that one group seeks supernatural explanations for phenomena while the other group insists on natural explanations. These two approaches to knowledge are utterly irreconcilable. That is why the moderators of this board often must eschew the usual rules of debate, because in the debates that take place here we are forced to accept such things as virgin births, global floods, fairies in the sky, demons in the ground, etc. etc. as plausible. Debate is usually based on logic and evidence, but in this case we are forced to give logic equal weight with illogic and evidence equal weight with fairy tales.
In a real debate, no one ever has to agree to accept an opponent's premise. That's what makes a debate a debate, for crying out loud! In a real debate, if the opponent poses a premise, the proponent is free to challenge the premise. It is then incumbent upon the opponent to present evidence and/or reasoned logic to support his or her premise. In a real debate, such evidence and/or logic cannot appeal to non-evidence-based notions of what the supernatural world might be like.
Thus, real debates don't take place here, at least whenever a YEC is involved.
"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."-George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss., Sept. 20, 2005.
the problem is that the creationist's premise is that they dismiss evolution out of hand. their premise is, as faith put it, that their reading of the word of god trumps all evidence, science, logic, reason, and other belief.
so they expect to be held to a double standard: we are expected to accept their premise of "evolution's premise is unacceptable."
quote: Irrelevant as usual PaulK. What archeologists assume about an ancient text or the particulars about any supposed city, have nothing whatever to do with the fact that YECs take the Bible as inerrant.
It seems that you agree that your comparison was misleading and thus my points were not only relevant - they were true.
quote: The analogy I made does not concern the premise of inerrancy but the conduct of the inquiry from that point, whatever the premise is. My point was that the model of archaeology is more descriptive of YEC methodology than Ben's model of forensics and that remains true.
And if that was your point, then the differences ARE relevant.
quote: Those who truly know the God of the Bible DO KNOW that the flood occurred and that is not for you to judge. Argue it on threads for the purpose if you like where YECs are free to ignore you.
If you want to get nasty about it I could simply insist that you back up your claim - as the rules of this forum allow. And we both know that you can't.
quote: And I already acknowledged many times in this argument that a genuine acceptance of the YEC premise would indeed weight the argument on the YEC side and this is why time after time I said that this debate is impossible if conducted fairly.
I don't know about that - I can't remember any such acknowledgments. I do know that you've often demanded acceptance of YEC presuppositions - as you did above - so your statement is an admission that you were intnetionally trying to rig the debate.
And most importantly of all you have yet to articulate any good reason why there is any need to accept YEC presuppositiona at all. And that point is the one point in my psot that you do not address.
My point is that this is the YEC's premise and if the debate is to have any pretense to fairness that premise must be accepted.
Why? I don't ask you to accept that the Theory of Evolution is correct, in fact I invite your challenge. All you have to do is provide evidence that convinces me that the Theory of Evolution is wrong. It's the same with your position. All anyone here or anywhere else does is show the evidence that proves that a world-wide flood did not happen, at least within the last several hundred thousand years.
If there will ever be any debate, then by definition both sides are subject to challenge.
It's really good to see you back. We really need posts such as yours. It's statements such as
In a debate you either agree to accept your opponent's premise or not.
that makes our job of showing the fundamental irrationality and bankruptcy of the Fundamentalist/Evangelical/YEC Christian position.
But the so-called "word of god" is, studied dispassionately, nothing more than a fairy tale. You can no more find hard evidence to support the word of god than you can the word of the Brothers Grimm.
no, that's not exactly true.
first of all, it's more than ONE fairytale. it's a whole heck of a lot of 'em. but the ascertion that one could find no more evidence for it than the brothers grimm is a little insulting, frankly. of course there's more evidence. it's mostly set in a real place, around some events that have been established by historical and archaeological means.
is it accurate? not even close. but is it based largely around reality? some books, yes. other books, no. you're a lot more likely to find evidence pertaining to samuel or kings than to genesis or job or jonah. -- not everything in the bible is a fairytale. some books are pseudo-histories, some books are poetry, some books are other types of writing.
In a debate you either agree to accept your opponent's premise or not.
In formal logic, you either accept the premise or you do not. If you accept the premise there is nothing to be debated except the proper use of logical deduction. If you reject the premise, there is nothing to debate at all.
In debates, it is usually the premises that are being questionned and being debated.
If the true God said it, that IS empirical. Yours said nothing by the way, only the God of the Bible has spoken.
Hold up, Faith...lets examine this a moment. For the sake of argument, assume that Mooses "God" was human wisdom. As Clint Eastwood said, "We are legends in our own minds!"
empiricism \im-pir-e-si-zem, em-\ n : the practice of relying on observation and experiment esp. in the natural sciences empiricist \-sist\ n
So....for the sake of the argument, one side asserts God a-priori..(You and I) whereas the other side quite probably asserts that collective human wisdom plus established methods of observation and verification=facts.
Just as oil and water do not mix, neither does Faith and Science.
I am glad to see that you are back, by the way....care to hang around a bit and administrate some of the Faith/Belief topics? We sure do miss your tenacious and persistant apologetics! :)
This message has been edited by Phat, 11-21-2005 09:54 AM
Matt 10:39-40 "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me."Jesus Christ Heb 4:12-13-- For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. Holy Spirit,speaking through the Apostle Paul
But if the true God really did say it - and intneded it to be interpeted literally then that owuld be a good reaon for beleiving it. If your position relies on that claim then that is what you should be arguing for. Why don't you start a new topic to make your case ?