Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,872 Year: 4,129/9,624 Month: 1,000/974 Week: 327/286 Day: 48/40 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith Science - Logically Indefensible
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 26 of 166 (353369)
10-01-2006 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
09-30-2006 9:20 PM


What???? Witness evidence? Testimony evidence? Nobody is still alive who ever talked to Napoleon personally, and you expect us to believe mere witnesses? The mere written word? Don't you know that witnesses are notoriously unreliable? I mean there are TESTS that prove that. Hey, millions upon millions have believed in Jesus Christ but you know there's no way to prove he existed nevertheless. People are easily mistaken, easily led, easily fooled you know, especially anyone born before, oh, 1960. And the ones who wrote about him originally, well they had motives to make up stuff you know. And there's no way to prove any of *them* even existed either, and when they say they actually witnessed these things, well, we just know that's not true. What rubbish.
because you know.. those people never wrote down anything, or had massive effect on the world due to trying to conquire the world.
and you know theres not historians who wrote about those people, that found graves and were they lived, that existed before they died!
sorry faith but trying to use our own considerations from why jesus wasn't what the bible said he was, can't be used in reverse, when we have historical evidence from more than one source on a person
theres only one "historical" source for christ.
no one other than the religion wrote about him as a living person, only the people that worshiped him and what they believed in
colaberating evidence is more useful than just one source no matter how much you believe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 09-30-2006 9:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 51 of 166 (353811)
10-03-2006 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
10-02-2006 2:02 PM


Re: Jesus gets a Napoleon complex
That is correct, we are looking at known facts that are not raw data. They are facts nonetheless, the way facts in accurate histories are facts. Napoleon was a real human being who headed real wars in the name of a real national entity. Alexander the Great was a real human being who made tremendous conquests of a huge swath of territory in the name of Greece. That sort of fact.
yes but we have evidence other than just the written word, we have artifacts and bones as well and buildings
OFF TOPIC BELOW THE PURPLE BOX - Please Do Not Respond to the remainder of this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
here is nothing that requires interpretation in the facts given concerning the Flood. Noah was 600 years old when the Flood was upon the earth. Nothing to interpret there, it’s a statement of fact. It rained for forty days and forty night. Straight factual statement, no interpretation required.
how is a fact? you have nothing showing this as true, its a myth to teach people about things. its not factual, how do you verify this?
This is ridiculous really. The reports in the Bible were written by many different authors, most of them witnesses, who corroborate each other’s reports in their own. There were others who did not write reports who could have if there was something to dispute in these.
this is not true, mark wasn't a witness, neither was luke or matthew,nether was john, the gospels haven't been shown to be written by the people who they claimed they were.
nore has moses been shown to have written any part of the torah, this is just a belief, the text doesn't even show this, it talks about his death even, but of course..it was written by someone else, apologetics are so much fun
If God told it, He certainly would have made sure it got passed down accurately. But the veracity of the stories of creation and the flood is buttressed by the many factual reference points: who begat whom and how long he lived, and what age Noah was when the flood was on the earth, and who begat whom after the flood and so on, facts which were probably rehearsed regularly in that ancient oral tradition. There is nothing general or vague about the telling. The exact dimensions of the ark are given. There is an unusual degree of specificity in this story as compared to other ancient stories. And the others may likely have some truth in them too, but it is drowned in vagueness and embellishments by comparison with the Genesis accounts.
yes and i could show you the linage of other religions that show the same thing. vaguemess? embellishments? genesis has a guy kill a thousand people with a jaw bone and you call other myths embellished?
you shouldn't throw stones in a glass house faith.
you just think yours is somehow special but i've read plenty of myths that are just as factual seeming. if you want i can find some, that is if you care about being truthful
Actually, the amazing fact that there are so many ancient stories of a gigantic flood is unbelievably strong corroboration. The attempts to reduce them all to local floods, as if they all just happened to experience these memorable local floods about the same time that made this huge impact on their consciousness, apart from all the OTHER big floods they must also have experienced over the millennia, is really laughable.
see this is the thing, the only myths that agree or relate to the genesis flood is ones in the area of israel, and the hebrews wrote about the same flood that happened locally
if you read any other flood myths, they are nothing like the hebrew one, unless missionaries effected them
Oden, Vili, and Ve fought and slew the great ice giant Ymir, and icy water from his wounds drowned most of the Rime Giants. The giant Bergelmir escaped, with his wife and children, on a boat made from a hollowed tree trunk. From them rose the race of frost ogres. Ymir's body became the world we live on. His blood became the oceans.
from T.O.
Flood Stories from Around the World
does that resemble the genesis flood? if you think so i'm going to start thinking you are insane
he ocean was once enclosed in a small pot kept by a man and his wife under the roof of their hut to fill their larger pots. The man told his daughter-in-law never to touch it because it contained their sacred ancestors. But she grew curious and touched it. It shattered, and the resulting flood drowned everything.
how about this one?
the fact is people fear water since they can die in it, but people need water to survive, if you live near an area with a large flooding source of water, you will most likely make up a story about water or rain
In any case, the actual INFLUENCE of Jesus Christ on millions since his time is astronomically far beyond that of any other historical figure.
which is an argument from majority and meaningless, since just to tell you if it wasn't for the roman empire inforcing belief after constitine converted i doubt it would have taken hold, even with people going out to pagan areas
Well, there were thousands then, but it shouldn’t be hard to find other historical personages who were only known in their small circles, not known by millions, whose fame spread beyond their own circles only after their death, people we have no problem believing existed. Probably even Napoleon himself wasn’t known as widely during his life as he was later.
umm no napoleon would have been well known considering what he did, he freed france then fought a majority of european powers
"The Napoleonic Code was adopted throughout much of Europe and remained in force after Napoleon's defeat. Professor Dieter Langewiesche of the University of Tbingen describes the code as a "revolutionary project" which spurred the development of bourgeois society in Germany by expanding the right to own property and breaking the back of feudalism
so yes he had a huge influence during his lifetime, he didn't die before they changed how warfare was fought
sorry if this is OT, but i wanted to point-out that claiming this is silly when you have no evidence
PORTIONS OF THIS MSG ARE OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to the off topic portions of this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 10-02-2006 2:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 111 of 166 (354274)
10-04-2006 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
10-03-2006 10:25 PM


Re: Logic
It's about faith and I'm arguing in rebuttal basically that faith in the Bible's statement of facts is as good as having facts, which is perfectly scientific. However, I will consider the rest of your points. Let me get all the way to the bottom edit by edit before considering this post finished.
what is fact? how do we know anything in that position is fact, theres no evidence to back anything in the bible up, other than hearsay and wishful thinking
It needs some sharpening up as a logic statement, but I took it simply to mean what I'm basically arguing, for instance, that I do have 100% certainty in the facts given in the Flood story -- more like 99% since I could change my mind about what the passage says -- I'm merely insisting that faith in the Bible is as good as having facts.
your faith is the only thing making the bible seem factual, its an illusion. it colors the way you see things, this doesn't mean the bible is right, it only shows you think it is, but the earth and the universe doesn't agree with the bible
Yes, if I have 100% certainty in the Biblical account of the Flood -- it's more like 99% since it's possible to show me how to read it differently -- then of course everything that opposes it is false, and the evidence is simply wrong or misinterpreted, and since it is we have the job of showing that.
i'm still waiting for anyone to show evidence that geology and cosmology is wrong and the bible is right, if you don't come from the conclution that the bible is right, even when there is evidence that its not right, i might be more willing to accept the bible as factual.
but i have yet to see anything that shows this
I just took it straight myself, though supplying the specific example of faith in the flood. His conclusion from his premises is, however, false. There is no problem at all objectively analyzing evidence against a known fact. We analyze it objectively as false or misinterpreted. We will no doubt need to argue for what the evidence DOES in fact show, if we have enough knowledge to do that, and that's the creativity of creation science.
creation science first needs to show why thier explaination is a better answer than the currently held scientific one. other wise its not objective, saying "this controdicts the bible,so its wrong!" is not an answer that is based on anything objective
That's where he needed to specify WHAT faith is in. I avoided that problem by choosing faith in the truth of the Biblical flood. There is a sense in which none of us has 100% faith in God because that's an active thing and we often betray a sense of distrust, but the sense in which I believe the Bible is the truth as written is close to 100%, leaving room for some different ways of reading parts of it. But your general point is right and he needs to have been more specific about the object of faith.
i think he was being general about it. if you have to interprete it then to me, you shouldn't have a problem with god creating life with evolution and genesis is just a story of the people who wrote it. i don't think you can have remotely 100% or even 80% certinty with the hacked up job the bible is. its like they pasted it togather one day saying "this is good, lets add this too"
Well, that is a logical point though, and I agree with him if I understand "despite the evidence" to mean that I simply regard the supposed evidence as false, as not supporting what it is supposed to support, or simply a misinterpretation. When he says "despite the evidence" he's begging the question, assuming the evidence IS evidence.
well contending that its supposed rather than real opposing evidence to what you believe is a double standard. thinking its false because it disagrees with your belief shows he's correct and your faith colors your objectivness, hurting your credibilty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 10-03-2006 10:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 149 of 166 (362321)
11-07-2006 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by foxjoe
11-06-2006 11:36 PM


Re: Templeton
How can people have multiple personallities? I mean there should only be one conscience, one person right? When we as scientist work experiments, we don't put our hands up to our brains pressing on our temples and say "work--work". Do we? The analogy of the circle should be in 4 dimensions anyway. Time is a factor, not usually counted when dealing with science.
thats a good question, but why are you asking yourself it? it starts to get worry some if you are debating yourself, are you sure you don't have MID
by the way they call it MID, multiple identity disorder, rather than multiple personality disorder
i'm confused though, what does time have to do with a circle? its a dimension sure, but its not really a factor in the shape of a circle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by foxjoe, posted 11-06-2006 11:36 PM foxjoe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-09-2006 6:37 AM ReverendDG 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