Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Joshpantera

LuthAMF verses Joshpantera: informal debate

Recommended Posts

That is precisely what I expected your reply to be.

29 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

What is his alternative to the standard model? Is it the book of Genesis? If so, where is his evidence of plural "gods" (later envisioned as one god in three persons) referred to as Elohim creating the world and making man in "their" image, according to "their" own likeness? How many points of evidence are necessary for the apologist to set forward Genesis 1 as having superior explanatory to the standard model cosmology

The "standard model" is theory and only theory drawn from the dismissal of any theological information. It's like the human mind trying to grasp eternity past. It cannot go there. When we try we can only speculate. Speculation is not truth. Speculation leads to all manner of wild unprovable theory. You said it yourself: you don't know. All you DO know is that you are unwilling to accept a particular model. At the end, you are demanding a mechanism in order that you may be able to approach and observe. One cannot be provided. The evolution-informed theory of ABIOGENESIS (big shout out!) cannot provide it for you but pleases by denying Genesis Creation. Anything, absolutely ANYTHING but that. We have no conclusive proof of that either but some accept it by faith. 

Again, you want a mechanism from eternity when you know good and well you cannot find one. One is elusive in its very nature being beyond human comprehension. The other is an approachable eternal regress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



<<edit>>

The other is an UNapproachable eternal regress.

 

Where's the EDIT button?🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

That is precisely what I expected your reply to be.

 

Likewise, your response was expected. 

 

13 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

The "standard model" is theory and only theory drawn from the dismissal of any theological information.

 

The "only theory" mantra of christian apologist's has been very played out on the internet. A scientific theory is a large body of work, to be brief. A wiki link for those unfamiliar with what it means to refer to a scientific theory, like the BBT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

13 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

It's like the human mind trying to grasp eternity past. It cannot go there. When we try we can only speculate. Speculation is not truth. Speculation leads to all manner of wild unprovable theory.

 

And that's what Genesis 1 and similar creation myths are. Speculation from the bronze age period or earlier about the origins of life and existence. And the speculation of mythology which was later carried forward as religion does lead to all manner of wild unprovable ideas. We can't very well call it "theory" because none of it presents us with what is required of a scientific theory. It doesn't even make it to contender status. 

 

13 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

You said it yourself: you don't know. All you DO know is that you are unwilling to accept a particular model. At the end, you are demanding a mechanism in order that you may be able to approach and observe. One cannot be provided. The evolution-informed theory of ABIOGENESIS (big shout out!) cannot provide it for you but pleases by denying Genesis Creation.

 

No one is denying Genesis 1 because it pleases them. I could care less. What I care about is figuring what's true and what's false. Genesis 1 has been shown false in a number of different ways, while the claim is that Genesis 1 is true. You are saying that you can't demonstrate Genesis 1 as true. And that's what I mean about Genesis 1 not even making it to contender status. There are hindu and eastern religion apologists who make similar claims. They try and mix the BBT with their mythology and try and claim that their myths are true. Some poke holes at the standard model and act as if poking holes makes their pet ideas true, but it doesn't work that way for either apologist. 

 

13 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

We have no conclusive proof of that either but some accept it by faith. 

 

Who would that be? I don't know anyone who believes abiogenesis on faith. But if they did, how would they be any different than a christian who accepts the bible on faith? What good is it to call attention to someone else believing something via faith when you yourself suffer the same potential damages that they would when it comes to believing something on faith alone? In short, you'd both be believing something naively. Making neither one of you any better than the other. 

 

What is the point when christians try and use this angle? It's as if you guys think that bringing someone else DOWN to your level is going to help your argument. But all you're doing is trying to bring someone DOWN. It doesn't lift you up in any perceivable way. Some explanation is needed. 

 

13 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Again, you want a mechanism from eternity when you know good and well you cannot find one. One is elusive in its very nature being beyond human comprehension. The other is an approachable eternal regress.

 

What does any of that have to do with Genesis 1? Genesis 1 ushers in space and time, separate from eternity and separate from any infinite regress. You don't have to try and prove something eternal. Was day 1 in the story line eternal? Or days 2-7? Or were they oriented to time (evenings and mornings)? I think you're getting lost in thought here or something. The proof for Genesis 1 should be found all around us because it's about the BEGINNING OF TIME. We're in the realm of time now. The evidence should be all around to gather and provide. But it isn't. That's the main problem here. We can find evidence of things that go back billions of years, indirectly or which ever way we can. So why does none of it gel with Genesis 1? 

 

Past eternal is a philosophical issue which can go the direction of philosophy of science. I did bring that up too, early on. If we exist in a multiverse then we're looking at natural existence extending out forever. Outside of the universe would be more universes. Coming and going all the time through natural means. Extending out forever and ever. Natural existence itself being "The Eternal," "The Infinite, "The Immanent / Transcendent." Evidence for this sort of thing would come indirectly, such as gravitational effects from one universe to another. 

 

But all of that has little to do with this debate about Genesis 1 as demonstrably true or false. That's farther than we need to go. The point is that Genesis tells a story of the creation of the earth and universe. That story doesn't add up with observable reality. Even if we grant that parts of the BBT may not add up either, so what? That would give us TWO things that we could then say are demonstrably false. Both wrong, each in their own ways. And we're still left with pushing forward on the truth seeking path to try and discover what is true. 

 

Do you think that maybe this direction is another dead end? That trying to poke holes in the BBT can't demonstrate that Genesis 1 is true? 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

You are saying that you can't demonstrate Genesis 1 as true. And that's what I mean about Genesis 1 not even making it to contender status.

No, what I am saying is that we are not provided A MECHANISM by which we can say "Ooooooh. So THATS how God did it." 

You possess ZERO evidence for the origins of even one speck of dirt. So you speculate. But Genesis provides for us a consistent and meaningful account encompassing ALL of life as is borne out throughout scripture.

 

Man has no inherent value above that of a slug in your BigBang world and history becomes random chance events. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

You possess ZERO evidence for the origins of even one speck of dirt. So you speculate. But Genesis provides for us a consistent and meaningful account encompassing ALL of life as is borne out throughout scripture.

 

And you posses more than that? 

 

6 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

No, what I am saying is that we are not provided A MECHANISM by which we can say "Ooooooh. So THATS how God did it." 

 

So Genesis 1 in NOT a mechanism which tells you clearly "how god did it" by your own admission?

 

If it doesn't tell us how god did it, then it isn't the revealed truth of the mystery of the origins of the universe and life. Right? Correct? The bible says that god spoke, and things came into existence. The spoken word is the mechanism given by scripture. So if you are now telling me that there is no mechanism, then it would appear that you must agree in some way that the bible is not speaking in terms of absolute truth, for one thing. Because the bible give it's claim to a mechanism for how god did it. It just doesn't gel with reality. 

 

6 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

But Genesis provides for us a consistent and meaningful account encompassing ALL of life as is borne out throughout scripture.

 

Consistent and meaningful in what way? Obviously not in the way of straight forward truth, as it looks. It doesn't tell anyone how god created the universe and life, as per your own admission. So what's meaningful about it if someone is concerned with finding truth? 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

"And you posses more than that?"

I just told you. Genesis, if it were a stand-alone narrative, would tell us only so much. But since it is the foundation for the comprehensive and unified whole, we have reason to look to it with confidence.

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

The bible says that god spoke, and things came into existence.

No, it does not. NO. IT. DOES. NOT. It says "In the beginning God created..." and provides for us NO mechanism for HOW He did so at that point. God did not speak until later.

"So Genesis 1 in NOT a mechanism which tells you clearly "how god did it" by your own admission?"

"...by your own admission." Don't play that child game, please. Not you. 

Yes, "God said "Let there be...""  and there was. This is what we've been given. But it still does not tell us HOW light appeared in that if we do the same thing, it will occur again. It is His work and yes, it is a supernatural work. Since all that follows is sensible, consistent and logical, we can look to it in confidence.

 

"If it doesn't tell us how god did it, then it isn't the revealed truth of the mystery of the origins of the universe and life. Right?"

"...how god did it..."

Who tells you it must reveal a mystery? There are definite mysteries that have been revealed throughout the whole of scripture but the power of the Word of God is not one of them. The very Being of God in His Essence is not fully "revealed" to us. We are taught concerning it in the Person of Christ ultimately but your audacious insistence upon the "how" only reveals a naturalistic materialistic bias.

God doesn't tell us HOW Christ was raised from the dead in that, if we do the same thing, it will occur again. He does not tell us HOW Christ multiplied the loaves and fish in that, if we do the same thing, it will occur again. . He does not tell you HOW Christ ascended into heaven in that, if we do the same thing, it will occur again. . 

"The bible says that god spoke, and things came into existence. The spoken word is the mechanism given by scripture."

Again, it does not say this. God created and then gave shape to things by the power of His Word. But you are still going to turn and say a spoken word is immaterial so can produce nothing.

 "So if you are now telling me that there is no mechanism..."

Which I am not. I am still saying it is out of our realm to inquire what the "mechanism" was. We are not told. You do not know either.

"...then it would appear that you must agree in some way that the bible is not speaking in terms of absolute truth,"

I agree to no such thing. All that follows is sensible, consistent and logical thus is truth.

"Because the bible give it's claim to a mechanism for how god did it. 

NO. IT. DOES. NOT give "it's claim to a mechanism". Your bias yields your bogus reading. NOWHERE does God say "I created and here's how I did it..."

It just doesn't gel with reality."

Translation: It doesn't square with my naturalistic, materialistic evolutionary mindset.

 

"Consistent and meaningful in what way?"

An "ExChristian" asks this. 

For starters, it allows the protoevangelium to make sense! Christianity 101.

"It doesn't tell anyone how god created the universe and life, as per your own admission."

YOU asserted the mechanism is the spoken word, not me. And I admitted NO SUCH THING.

Did God say "Let there be man" and there was man? No. He created man out of the dust of the ground. How? We're not told. And then he breathed into man the breath of life. But now that you are told that much, I want you to create man out of the dust of the ground too. Isn't that what you want? A materialistic mechanism? There it is.

"So what's meaningful about it if someone is concerned with finding truth?"

Because it will not lead someone into the void of naturalistic materialism and the abyss of evolution.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Who tells you it must reveal a mystery? There are definite mysteries that have been revealed throughout the whole of scripture but the power of the Word of God is not one of them. The very Being of God in His Essence is not fully "revealed" to us. We are taught concerning it in the Person of Christ ultimately but your audacious insistence upon the "how" only reveals a naturalistic materialistic bias.

God doesn't tell us HOW Christ was raised from the dead in that, if we do the same thing, it will occur again. He does not tell us HOW Christ multiplied the loaves and fish in that, if we do the same thing, it will occur again. . He does not tell you HOW Christ ascended into heaven in that, if we do the same thing, it will occur again. . 

 

Yes it does. Supernatural powers are the mechanism given. It's not as if the bible alludes to anything else other than supernatural powers in each case. Do you have supernatural powers? Will these situations occur again and again by those who do not possess supernatural powers? Why take the above direction then? 

 

The issue is that you are then charged with proving with evidence that these supernatural claims are true - demonstrably true. Can you demonstrate that by any means? 

 

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"And you posses more than that?"

I just told you. Genesis, if it were a stand-alone narrative, would tell us only so much. But since it is the foundation for the comprehensive and unified whole, we have reason to look to it with confidence.

 

Again, can you use the bible to prove the supernatural claims made within the bible? That's what you seem to be suggesting about this "comprehensive and unified whole." You seem to think that the bible proves it's own claims. How does it do that? And is that an intellectually honest approach? 

 

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"The bible says that god spoke, and things came into existence. The spoken word is the mechanism given by scripture."

Again, it does not say this. God created and then gave shape to things by the power of His Word. But you are still going to turn and say a spoken word is immaterial so can produce nothing.

 

I'm going to say that in mythology, this is a consistent type of narrative. Supernatural, fictional magic (something like an incantation spell in the case of Genesis 1) is common place. 'Let there be this, and there was this. Let there be that, and there was that.' Instantly. There's no hint of any long processes. OECist's have been addressed many times already in this debate. 

 

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"So if you are now telling me that there is no mechanism..."

Which I am not. I am still saying it is out of our realm to inquire what the "mechanism" was. We are not told. You do not know either.

 

Than arguing about evolution is futile, correct? There's no reason to even argue in the first place if for all you know (1) evolution is true and (2) the god you believe could have used it as his mechanism because the supernatural language of Genesis 1 - by your own insistence - is not the mechanism by which god created things. So that would then leave you open to the possibility the mechanism was evolution, alien seeding, or some other mechanism influenced by god OTHER than the supernatural spoken word that we do see in the scriptures. If not, please explain why. 

 

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"...then it would appear that you must agree in some way that the bible is not speaking in terms of absolute truth,"

I agree to no such thing. All that follows is sensible, consistent and logical thus is truth.

 

You'll need to explain what is consistent and logical about a world created in six days, talking serpent, magical garden, men with extraordinarily long lives, a global scale flood, slavery in Egypt, and a virgin born son of god crucified, risen and ascended up into heaven. None of the above mentioned, btw, having any evidence in their support. That's not to say that christians don't claim to have evidence, but that the claims have all been shown false one after the next. That represents the height of INCONSISTENCY. And ILL-LOGIC. And amounts to FALSEHOOD rather than truth from what I can tell. 

 

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"Because the bible give it's claim to a mechanism for how god did it. 

NO. IT. DOES. NOT give "it's claim to a mechanism". Your bias yields your bogus reading. NOWHERE does God say "I created and here's how I did it..."

 

Because how it works is how it's written - supernatural fantasy. And it's rather impossible for you to demonstrate otherwise isn't it? 

 

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"Consistent and meaningful in what way?"

An "ExChristian" asks this. 

For starters, it allows the protoevangelium to make sense! Christianity 101.

 

It would be helpful if you state your methodology for interpretation. People here come from a wide range of denominations. What are using in this debate? Calvinism? Something else? Let us know please. Thanks. 

 

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"It doesn't tell anyone how god created the universe and life, as per your own admission."

YOU asserted the mechanism is the spoken word, not me. And I admitted NO SUCH THING.

Did God say "Let there be man" and there was man? No. He created man out of the dust of the ground. How? We're not told. And then he breathed into man the breath of life. But now that you are told that much, I want you to create man out of the dust of the ground too. Isn't that what you want? A materialistic mechanism? There it is.

 

Yes, it tells us that a supernatural god molded a clay figurine from the dust of the ground and breathed supernatural life into the little thing. And it became a living being that if continued eating from the supernatural tree of life, would live forever like an immortal being. Again, this is how mythology tends to read. It says what it says, and it means what it means. You seem to think that it means something OTHER than what it says because you recognize that what it says is ILL-LOGICAL. But you want to believe it anyways, so imagine that there must be more to it than just run of the mill creation myth. 

 

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"So what's meaningful about it if someone is concerned with finding truth?"

Because it will not lead someone into the void of naturalistic materialism and the abyss of evolution.

 

What if naturalistic materialism is true? And further, what if you calling it a "void" is just an assumption? Do you not realize that naturalistic materialism and evolution could be true and also not lead to some "void" as you put it? How far have you thought this through, btw? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 What if the void of naturalistic materialism is true?

"What if..."

That seems to be the gist of the entire debate. "What if..." and then assert a position. You can do that all day on absolutely everything offered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"What if..."

That seems to be the gist of the entire debate. "What if..." and then assert a position. You can do that all day on absolutely everything offered. 

 

So what does that tell you? 

 

The bible and christianity exist as but one of many, many "what if's?"

 

And therefore claiming absolute truth, as one of many "what if's" is completely unwarranted and intellectually dishonest? Let's get laser focused here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

So what does that tell you?

That tells me that you as a sceptic are willing, in the face of ANY fact, to say, "Yeah but what if..." thus negating the fact. Or at least casting doubt which is at the heart of the sceptic. And he thinks its admirable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

That tells me that you as a sceptic are willing, in the face of ANY fact, to say, "Yeah but what if..." thus negating the fact. Or at least casting doubt which is at the heart of the sceptic. And he thinks its admirable.

 

Why wouldn't it be admirable? 

 

The situation is that you (like everyone else in the world who tries making positive religious claims) have no solid evidence to provide in order firm up your positive claims that your creation story is factual and true. You go further and positively claim that it's consistent. That's the road ahead. 

 

Can you even substantiate that the bible is self consistent? So many people have left christianity specifically because they started seeing how self contradicting the bible is. 

 

In the first place, what have you presented that you think are facts? Are you talking about the pseudo scientific, anti-big bang claims of the christian apologist? Redshift may not be what we assume? We may be the center of the universe after all, etc., etc.? If so, those are a bunch of "what if's." And most likely he wrong on every point. Every single attempt at trying to poke holes. I say that because I've seen so many secular, competitive theorist's gaming to position their own theories. Poking holes at red shift is a common tactic. But at the end of the day none of these attempts fair well. Just because someone disagrees with the interpretation doesn't mean that they've successfully debunked it. They have to actually debunk it. 

 

Here's a hop, skip and a jump through the thrust of what we're facing. 

 

1) Genesis 1 used to be taken as how the world was created by both secular and religious authorities in the western world.  

2) Geocentricism was based on taking Genesis 1 literally. 

3) Observations began to disprove Genesis 1. 

4) As more observations poured in Genesis 1 lost it's place as the standard cosmological model, basically. 

5) Science moved on and continued searching (via observation) for what may actually be true about the origins of the universe and the earth. 

6) Christian apologist's have tried to evolve and adapt every inch of the way, gaming to try and stay in the game. 

7) Here we are now discussing it in the contemporary period. 

 

If someone thinks that origins and / or destinations are NOT a bunch of "what if's," that person or persons carry the burden of proof to substantiate the positive claims. Claiming to know = the burden of proof. That's why no one "believes" with "faith" that abiogenesis is true, for instance. They can't satisfy the burden of proof and they know it. So it's not presented as a positive claim. It's one of many, "what if's" from an intellectually honest platform. The same with a multiverse scenario. It's not different. These are not presented as hard fact nor absolute truth. They are just scenarios that are likely based on the current body of knowledge and / or observation that gives direct or indirect scenarios. 

 

So here's a scenario. You present us with a false dichotomy. It's either Genesis 1 is true OR we face a meaningless void. 

 

It's a false dichotomy because the truth may not be limited to these two choices. If I look around at what's on the table, I can see the potential for any number of additional options. If we exist in a multiverse then we face things like infinite replication, where if something like the earth comes into existence then it will be repeated again and again infinitely. Not alone in the multiverse and not facing a void. Life would be a naturally recurring phenomenon over and over again throughout eternity, basically. There would be a before and there would be an after. And space itself would not be limited just to the interior of our universe. The natural realm of existence would be infinite and eternal. Natural existence would be the absolute. Immanent and transcendent. 

 

If the consciousness as fundamental arguments raging among philosophers and scientists gain merit, then additional scenarios present themselves. Awareness would be primary. It would found the whole of the material sciences as a newly discovered aspect of material itself. It would then apply to the infinite and eternal cosmological models in like fashion. Biological evolution in like fashion. Those are just two more scenarios on the table for consideration. 

 

The fact remains that reality is a series of "what if's,' unless of course you or someone else can step forward and prove otherwise? Where's the hard evidence that tells us exactly, absolutely how the universe, earth and life came to be? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, after several days away from home resources in order to form a reply, I can return. 

Obviously while "on the run" I jumped into the foray or other threads here. I must admit, Josh, you did warn me. It was, and still will be, an "enlightening" adventure "out there" in the shadowlands, but here is where my main focus is to be. I was admonished to return here (and stay here...like I was someone's dog) but the freedom to roam is too enticing, I guess.

 

We need to keep keenly focused upon one thing here. We are human beings. There is no other reason for doing what we are presently doing aside from the fact that we have cognitive abilities which we utilize to a lesser or greater degree given our individual capacities. Our common goal is to understand our world and live in conformity to the realities before us. I would hope this is agreeable and will not be nuanced beyond recognition.

 

So you have asked what is meant when I say scripture is a consistent whole. I said "But Genesis provides for us a consistent and meaningful account encompassing ALL of life as is borne out throughout scripture."

You replied "Consistent and meaningful in what way? Obviously not in the way of straight forward truth, as it looks. It doesn't tell anyone how god created the universe and life, as per your own admission. So what's meaningful about it if someone is concerned with finding truth?" and later,

"So here's a scenario. You present us with a false dichotomy. It's either Genesis 1 is true OR we face a meaningless void. It's a false dichotomy because the truth may not be limited to these two choices. If I look around at what's on the table, I can see the potential for any number of additional options. If we exist in a multiverse..."

So I repeat that the "what if" can reduce any truth to absurdity. You say you want to deal with reality but then interject the "what if" of a multiverse for which there is absolutely NO "reason" to believe other than the fanciful meanderings of conjecture. 

 

But I also noted to you that a consistent view of creation gives us a consistent anthropology. It gives us a consistent sociology. Whether or not you agree completely with them, your own gods-of-atheism, Nietzche, Marx and Freud claimed that human beings are not really governed by reason; that essentially, we're animals motivated by dark passions underneath what is otherwise a calm exterior: the most important being the will to power. They are being consistent with their evolution-informed, naturalistic materialism and contrary to the recognition of our cognitive abilities we claim we use for reason. 

"This is all materialism get us. If all reality is reduced to material and efficient causes, then even language necessarily is just one more way the universe violently gets things done making the genuine dialectic impossible. Even in the...days when people actually believed we had access to transcendent values, dialectic was a painful and imprecise process. Words can help us see  the reality outside our heads."  and "People can bend the truth to serve their own selfish interests. We have a name for that and that is called "lying"" C.R. Wiley

 

I said "That seems to be the gist of the entire debate. "What if..." and then assert a position. You can do that all day on absolutely everything offered."

And your reply? 

"So what does that tell you? 

The bible and christianity exist as but one of many, many "what if's?"

Josh, no one functions this way. It's Sunday. But "what if" it's not? It's 5:30 pm. But what if it's not? I'm 16 years old. But what if I'm not? I see trees outside my window. But what if they're not trees? What if there's no window? What if I'm not me?

And therefore claiming absolute truth, as one of many "what if's" is completely unwarranted and intellectually dishonest?

Question mark? 

Let's get laser focused here." 

Yes, let's. Which is why I brought language into this. 

 

 

On 7/26/2019 at 7:42 AM, Joshpantera said:

Why wouldn't it be admirable?

I told you. Because it negates an actual truth that you all claim be be so passionate about. Your position is reduced to an eternal mumbling to oneself.

On 7/26/2019 at 7:42 AM, Joshpantera said:

The situation is that you (like everyone else in the world who tries making positive religious claims) have no solid evidence to provide in order firm up your positive claims that your creation story is factual and true. You go further and positively claim that it's consistent. That's the road ahead.

Yep. That's the road ahead. Or like you who makes a positive naturalistic claim. (And don't tell me you haven't)

The notion (A NOTION because solid evidence is not what is required) that matter and energy are all there is does not and cannot provide for us a basis for functioning as any more than amoebae. We are no more meaningful because we are a product of it.  We are just oozing our way along. 

Why say we have human dignity? It's as empty as the random chance that gave us this world. If it wasn't inherent in the first cells, we ain't got it.

But like I told you earlier, Genesis is not a stand alone account. It has implications for how we view things just like naturalistic materialism does. So Genesis can provide for man a sense of "oughtness" in behavior while yours is "Who gives a rip?" You deny this but you do so on the basis of a purposeful created order. 

The "solid evidence" demanded is forever subject to how the evidence we DO possess is approached and interpreted. So here, I repeat, the Naturalist makes the rules and Rule #1 is Dismiss God.

 

On 7/26/2019 at 7:42 AM, Joshpantera said:

Can you even substantiate that the bible is self consistent? So many people have left christianity specifically because they started seeing how self contradicting the bible is. 

Yes. 

People leaving is utterly irrelevant and is proof of nothing. It doesn't mean the bible IS inconsistent or contradictory just that they saw it that way.  But if it were such a self-contradictory unit, you now indict the entirety of Christians throughout history as idiots at best and con men at worst. Do you not think that this would have been self evident as men worked their way through via the Science of hermeneutical principles and exegesis? These are precise disciplines in the field and the integrity has been proven through the exacting discipline of exegesis. Are you so naive as to think these men were not challenged on this very point? Did they run away from the objection? No. They soberly addressed and sufficiently answered. Except not sufficient for those who think they see better.

 

On 7/26/2019 at 7:42 AM, Joshpantera said:

In the first place, what have you presented that you think are facts?

The facts are not my own. I can only present what we've been given. You expect me to trust your rendering of things. 

I see history itself as having borne out the truth of a revealed order of things. There is a purpose to my history. I'm afraid yours is still random happenstance with little significance. It's just the oozing along until...you know the saying: shit happens. A big SO WHAT.

On 7/26/2019 at 7:42 AM, Joshpantera said:

Just because someone disagrees with the interpretation doesn't mean that they've successfully debunked it. They have to actually debunk it. 

And of course this works both ways. You think the bible has been successfully debunked yet it actually answers something. I think the evolutionary scheme is self obliterating and can ultimately and concretely answer nothing. 

On 7/26/2019 at 7:42 AM, Joshpantera said:

1) Genesis 1 used to be taken as how the world was created by both secular and religious authorities in the western world.  

Correct. Because then, language was such that it actually informed. And what was produced out of such clarity? The greatness of what became the Western World. What's your gripe? We have what we have because of this not in spite of it. The Enlightenment did not occur in a vacuum and the dominant mind  in Europe began the process of degradation.

On 7/26/2019 at 7:42 AM, Joshpantera said:

2) Geocentricism was based on taking Genesis 1 literally. 

In some circles and some particular (and infamous) instances. Who and what was in power? Who was under consignment to produce a statement? There was a reason. 

On 7/26/2019 at 7:42 AM, Joshpantera said:

5) Science moved on and continued searching (via observation) for what may actually be true about the origins of the universe and the earth. 

"Science" who? When? Of course it "moved on". But it didn't leave Christianity behind nor could it. Science belongs to no one. 

"... for what may actually be true about the origins of the universe and the earth."

No underlying bias or veiled slur in that statement. What do you mean "actually...true"? As opposed to centuries of lies from ignorance? "Christian" ignorance, I'm sure, as secular science has always been at the fore. "What if" they merely introduced a new wave of speculation without proof of anything?

 

On 7/26/2019 at 7:42 AM, Joshpantera said:

6) Christian apologist's have tried to evolve and adapt every inch of the way, gaming to try and stay in the game. 

Some Christian apologists. And again, it's irrelevant and proves nothing in your favor. Modern Christian scientists are not scrambling around trying to become or remain relevant in the face of overwhelming force. We (Christians. Not that I am included as a scientist) do as we have always done as sober-minded, reasonable men. We allow facts to be borne out after careful consideration, we allow a consistent historical narrative to accompany and maintain sensibility, and we observe and draw conclusions just like everyone else. But where once there was dialectic dialog, now there is only demand for capitulation.

On 7/26/2019 at 7:42 AM, Joshpantera said:

If someone thinks that origins and / or destinations are NOT a bunch of "what if's," that person or persons carry the burden of proof to substantiate the positive claims.

...while the speculator gets off scot-free in his ramblings about "what if" because he has no solid ground for anything at all.  You simply offer your presupposition here. What are you even debating at this point?

On 7/26/2019 at 7:42 AM, Joshpantera said:

That's why no one "believes" with "faith" that abiogenesis is true, for instance. They can't satisfy the burden of proof and they know it. So it's not presented as a positive claim. It's one of many, "what if's" from an intellectually honest platform.

"Intellectually honest." Only in the sense that delving into such things requires more than finite humanity possesses. We aren't privy to such things and you know it. But you still search for that elusive mechanism. Abiogenesis, though, while successful at producing something, has been shown to be an astronomical impossibility. Honesty? It's an impossibility. But hey..."What if it isn't?" What if pigs CAN sprout wings and fly?

On 7/26/2019 at 7:42 AM, Joshpantera said:

These are not presented as hard fact nor absolute truth. They are just scenarios that are likely based on the current body of knowledge and / or observation that gives direct or indirect scenarios. 

So kinda like "values Clarification" psycho-babble. 

On 7/26/2019 at 7:42 AM, Joshpantera said:

So here's a scenario. You present us with a false dichotomy. It's either Genesis 1 is true OR we face a meaningless void. 

Not meaningless. No reason for meaning. Of course life has meaning. We all share in the same spectrum of human desire and emotion. But as I said earlier, there are things that detract from meaning and render things insanely futile: sheer naturalism.

On 7/26/2019 at 7:42 AM, Joshpantera said:

The fact remains that reality is a series of "what if's,' unless of course you or someone else can step forward and prove otherwise? Where's the hard evidence that tells us exactly, absolutely how the universe, earth and life came to be? 

 

"Reality" suddenly becomes Origins? Which do you want? Someone to prove an intangible reality or someone to prove the tangible world we all live in and observe? Apples and oranges and a serious category error on your part.

"The fact remains that reality is a series of "what if's..."

Excuse me? This is a fact? That's living in a fantasy itself! We confidently conduct our lives due to known and common absolutes. As children in school, we weren't taught that red is red only until someone stupidly asks "What if red is really snurp?" Would we commend this student? How profoundly confusing.

You prize logic. Logic does not exist in a "what if" world. What if "A" really could be both "A" and "Non-A" at the same time and in the same relation. 

 

And you're trying to direct me somewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

So, after several days away from home resources in order to form a reply, I can return. 

Obviously while "on the run" I jumped into the foray or other threads here. I must admit, Josh, you did warn me. It was, and still will be, an "enlightening" adventure "out there" in the shadowlands, but here is where my main focus is to be. I was admonished to return here (and stay here...like I was someone's dog) but the freedom to roam is too enticing, I guess.

 

It's you verses a lot of people if you venture off. 

 

23 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

But I also noted to you that a consistent view of creation gives us a consistent anthropology. It gives us a consistent sociology. Whether or not you agree completely with them, your own gods-of-atheism, Nietzche, Marx and Freud claimed that human beings are not really governed by reason; that essentially, we're animals motivated by dark passions underneath what is otherwise a calm exterior: the most important being the will to power. They are being consistent with their evolution-informed, naturalistic materialism and contrary to the recognition of our cognitive abilities we claim we use for reason. 

"This is all materialism get us. If all reality is reduced to material and efficient causes, then even language necessarily is just one more way the universe violently gets things done making the genuine dialectic impossible. Even in the...days when people actually believed we had access to transcendent values, dialectic was a painful and imprecise process. Words can help us see  the reality outside our heads."  and "People can bend the truth to serve their own selfish interests. We have a name for that and that is called "lying"" C.R. Wiley

 

They are products of their time and place. I'm telling you that 1) reality may be much more than they assumed in the 19th and 20th centuries. But it's important that science realized that Genesis 1 doesn't explain reality and moved on to TRYING to explain reality given the fact. So the humanity could move forward at least trying to figure it , trying to get it right. Because Genesis 1 clearly isn't right. So the question remains, 'what is true and correct then?"

 

There's no rule that we're entitled to ever figuring it out either. We may never figure it out. But throwing our hands up in the air in futility doesn't seem like the best option, and pointing to bronze age creations and concluding on taking them literally (despite their obvious hang ups) doesn't look like a very good option either. The false dichotomy fails to take into account the myriad options which are available in this day and age for consideration. 

 

So science pushes on, moving forward, seeking answers.....

 

23 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

And therefore claiming absolute truth, as one of many "what if's" is completely unwarranted and intellectually dishonest?

Question mark? 

Let's get laser focused here." 

Yes, let's. Which is why I brought language into this. 

 

Do you have anything to offer? Or is the bible a "what if the bible is true" situation?

 

In line with every other "what if such and such is true" situation? You haven't demonstrated that it's true. And not being able to demonstrate that it's true, it would appear that you're stuck with a "what if the bible is true," type of situation. Because you can't demonstrate that it is true. 

 

23 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Yep. That's the road ahead. Or like you who makes a positive naturalistic claim. (And don't tell me you haven't)

The notion (A NOTION because solid evidence is not what is required) that matter and energy are all there is does not and cannot provide for us a basis for functioning as any more than amoebae. We are no more meaningful because we are a product of it.  We are just oozing our way along. 

Why say we have human dignity? It's as empty as the random chance that gave us this world. If it wasn't inherent in the first cells, we ain't got it.

But like I told you earlier, Genesis is not a stand alone account. It has implications for how we view things just like naturalistic materialism does. So Genesis can provide for man a sense of "oughtness" in behavior while yours is "Who gives a rip?" You deny this but you do so on the basis of a purposeful created order. 

The "solid evidence" demanded is forever subject to how the evidence we DO possess is approached and interpreted. So here, I repeat, the Naturalist makes the rules and Rule #1 is Dismiss God.

 

This is more of the false dichotomy thinking. And I think it's obvious that your religious bias is causing you to think in these terms - either it's this futile example or the bible is true.

 

When the truth could just as well be that neither your futile example nor the bible are (1) the only options and (2) neither may be true.

 

I tend to think (based on understanding beyond these false dichotomies) reality probably isn't what old school 19th century materialist's assumed. So it makes little sense to bring them up and / or refer to them as "gods" to someone like me. Because they are not gods to me. They may be gods to some other atheist, but not me. So it makes little sense to take that direction. It's a dead end street. 

 

Rule #1 is not dismiss god, btw. 

 

Let's just take rule #1 to be provide the evidence for one's claim if it must be anything. The evidence that the world and universe was created by god(s), in six days, with light and darkness (evenings and mornings) existing before the sun, moon and stars. With grass and vegetation growing on the dry land of an already existing earth a day before the sun, moon and stars were made. That's what an evidence line of inquiry faces. 

 

Now if there is no evidence for the claim, then the claim is dismissed based on the lack of evidence usually. Not because people are in a haste to reject a god, but because the claim of the god's and the god's creation comes across as bunk from the outset. Just like any other claim without evidence. We could be talking about big foot or nessy. Same thing. We could be talking about Hindu creation mythology, same thing again. Jungle myths, same thing. Desert or mountain myths, same thing again. And your position would be that everyone's just in a haste to reject Hindu mythology, or big foot, or nessy and you would missing the point that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence if they are to be taken seriously. The only different between what you're claiming and what anyone else is claiming is that you're special pleading for own beliefs. That's it.  

 

That's why theistic claims are not being taken seriously. It's because of their own lack in supporting evidence. That's square one. 

 

23 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Except not sufficient for those who think they see better.

 

And what if it so happens that those people DO see better? What if It's not that they just think that they see better, but that they actually do see better? 

 

23 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

And of course this works both ways. You think the bible has been successfully debunked yet it actually answers something. I think the evolutionary scheme is self obliterating and can ultimately and concretely answer nothing. 

 

What does the bible answer? The point here is reality. Describing or knowing it to the best of one's ability or accurately if that were possible.

 

You keep saying that the bible answers that, but you haven't demonstrated the claim. Still, after all of these posts, the claim has not been demonstrated as true. It doesn't matter one bit what evolution does or does not do. Do you understand that yet? That doesn't get you any leg up.

 

If we put them side by side, which I have, evolution has more consistency than the bible in terms of explaining what we do observe. Doesn't mean science is inerrant, it just means that it has better explanatory power over a bronze age creation myth. This should be obvious to an objective mind. But that's the hub of the situation. You are not currently thinking with an objective mind. You're showing me false dichotomies and logical fallacies one after the next. Revealing the way in which you are currently allowing religious bias to cloud your reasoning abilities. And I'm encouraging you to try and move beyond that. Open out a little more. And take in a bigger picture. 

 

23 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Some Christian apologists. And again, it's irrelevant and proves nothing in your favor. Modern Christian scientists are not scrambling around trying to become or remain relevant in the face of overwhelming force. We (Christians. Not that I am included as a scientist) do as we have always done as sober-minded, reasonable men. We allow facts to be borne out after careful consideration, we allow a consistent historical narrative to accompany and maintain sensibility, and we observe and draw conclusions just like everyone else. But where once there was dialectic dialog, now there is only demand for capitulation.

 

You've shown some poor reasoning abilities with false dichotomies and logical fallacies that continue on. Your sources and citations have shown us poor reasoning abilities in similar ways. You, under the influence of the outlined religious bias, seem to think that you're perfectly logical, the bible is consistent with itself, the christians have had it right all these years, etc., etc.

 

I think they've had it wrong from the outset. I tend to think that they stand in line among every other variety of religionist in the world who has also had it wrong the whole time, but who have still managed to exist into the present day - despite having it all wrong from the outset. And they, like you, think they are consistent and correct. That their religious authorities have had it right all along. But you obviously don't believe that they're correct. But they exist. How can they still exist unless they've been right all along? Still existing, being able to throw apologetic's at scientist's = correctness, is that what you're saying? But only in a special pleading, manner, only if the religionist in question is a christian, right? 

 

That's the mentality that you're demonstrating here. How can Hindu's still exist today in the face of science and everything else, unless they were right all along? You're special pleading for christianity. That's what you're doing. That's the example you're setting forward. And that's not very logical. You have to provide something more than that in order to demonstrate your claims are true. 

 

23 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"Intellectually honest." Only in the sense that delving into such things requires more than finite humanity possesses. We aren't privy to such things and you know it. But you still search for that elusive mechanism. Abiogenesis, though, while successful at producing something, has been shown to be an astronomical impossibility. Honesty? It's an impossibility. But hey..."What if it isn't?" What if pigs CAN sprout wings and fly?

On 7/26/2019 at 7:42 AM, Joshpantera said:

 

If abiogenesis is an astronomical impossibility, then why are they still testing it? Are you being intellectually honest right now? If it were impossible, science would have disregarded it as impossible and stopped looking in that direction, wouldn't they? 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdozVq81gog

 

23 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"The fact remains that reality is a series of "what if's..."

Excuse me? This is a fact? That's living in a fantasy itself! We confidently conduct our lives due to known and common absolutes. As children in school, we weren't taught that red is red only until someone stupidly asks "What if red is really snurp?" Would we commend this student? How profoundly confusing.

You prize logic. Logic does not exist in a "what if" world. What if "A" really could be both "A" and "Non-A" at the same time and in the same relation. 

 

And you're trying to direct me somewhere. 

 

Reality is a series of "what if's" because reality is currently not known in a direct way. That's why people are trying to figure it out. If were already known, then science would shut down and stop. That's what I mean. Does that make sense to you? What if it turns out that reality is such and such? Because currently, we don't know what it is exactly. So truth seeking is a "thing." It happens. Because we currently don't understand it in absolute terms as a species. Has this not been made clear enough? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

We could be talking about big foot or nessy. Same thing. We could be talking about Hindu creation mythology, same thing again. And your position would be that it's just a haste to reject Hindu mythology, or big foot, or nessy and you would missing the point that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence if they are to be taken seriously. 

 

That's why theistic claims are not being taking seriously. It's because of their own lacking in supporting evidence. That's square one. 

We could be (and are) talking about Naturalism as well. Each system produces an effect. Nietzsche and Marx, while you relegate them to merely "men of their time" are still consistent with the view that man is animal and no more. They weren't lacking in any scientific evidence to the contrary of which we today are privy. It remains entirely consistent with their own materialistic worldview and I see no reason to think they would not say exactly the same thing were they alive today.

 

Your square one? Not being taken seriously by whom? Those in the long line of unbelief and naturalistic bias? It is NOT due to lack of "evidence".

I guess I must repeat

"The "solid evidence" demanded is forever subject to how the evidence we DO possess is approached and interpreted. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. You frequently say someone has not "thought things through."

You've joined the club.

56 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

If we put them side by side, which I have, evolution has more consistency than the bible in terms of explaining what we do observe. Doesn't mean it's inerrant, it just means that it has better explanatory power over a creation myth

But then you tell me

 

56 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

Reality is a series of "what if's" because reality is currently not known in a direct way. That's why people are trying to figure it out. If were already known, then science would shut down and stop. That's what I mean. Does that make sense to you? What if it turns out that reality is such and such? Because currently, we don't know what it is exactly. 

People are running around trying to figure out reality???? Which people?  They need help. But when we find those obviously mentally ill people who have detached from "reality", you now tell me they may actually be on to something.

Now, Nobody knows reality in a direct way.

We have known reality in a direct way in order to do proper science in the first place. Are you telling me that nothing is really real?

I'm going to run straight into that brick wall outside my house. I think I'll find reality in a fairly direct way.

There's a reason we don't play in traffic.

 

Science would shut down and stop???

This is insane! A comprehensible Reality is the basis for science. We observe and will continue to observe all that is before us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, does evolution give us actual evidence or is it, in your mind, the best we have thus far?

 

If it's not actual, I'm not interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

We could be (and are) talking about Naturalism as well. Each system produces an effect. Nietzsche and Marx, while you relegate them to merely "men of their time" are still consistent with the view that man is animal and no more. They weren't lacking in any scientific evidence to the contrary of which we today are privy. It remains entirely consistent with their own materialistic worldview and I see no reason to think they would not say exactly the same thing were they alive today.

 

Your square one? Not being taken seriously by whom? Those in the long line of unbelief and naturalistic bias? It is NOT due to lack of "evidence".

I guess I must repeat

"The "solid evidence" demanded is forever subject to how the evidence we DO possess is approached and interpreted. "

 

The stuff you're presenting is what people defending a personal bias do. Take red shift for instance. This people are just trying to poke holes in the interpretation of red shifted light because they don't like the expanding universe interpretation of red shift. People who understand the arena generally don't take the "hole pokers" very seriously. Because their motives are transparent, first of all. Would they even admit if they were wrong?

 

That's a serious question. I keep pressing you to be intellectually honest because I want to know if you're capable of it. Do you concede that believing in god doesn't mean that you know as a fact that god exists? Are you intellectually honest enough to admit an agnostic - theist position? You couldn't possibly know that a god exists in terms of raw knowledge. It's a belief. You have faith. I know many honest christians who admit as much. And they are agnostic theists, intellectually honest theists. 

 

What about you? 

 

20 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

But then you tell me

 

Why do human beings have the remnant of a tail, referred to as our "tail bone?" No apparent reason, or because we are currently still great Apes? It's not as if we're something other than a species of great Ape right now as we type, right? That's just a silly example, I know. But it's an obvious one. It's like looking at Manatee skeleton's and seeing their finger bones in the front flippers. Another simplistic example. The truth of evolution is all around us while special pleading apologist's rush left and right looking to throw crap on the wall and see what sticks, basically. It's obvious to anyone capable of seeing it for it actually is. Does that exclude those who are currently blinded by the religious bias, of course it does. 

 

20 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

People are running around trying to figure out reality???? Which people?  They need help. But when we find those obviously mentally ill people who have detached from "reality", you now tell me they may actually be on to something.

Now, Nobody knows reality in a direct way.

We have known reality in a direct way in order to do proper science in the first place. Are you telling me that nothing is really real?

I'm going to run straight into that brick wall outside my house. I think I'll find reality in a fairly direct way.

There's a reason we don't play in traffic.

 

As I said, you've been coming across as rather uninformed in the areas of reality, perception, etc. Everything we see as out there, are representations inside of our minds. It means that our minds interpret energies that exist out there as a brick wall, trees, other people, etc. There's nothing green about the grass. That's a color that our mind assigns to something that it is perceiving out there. That doesn't mean nothing exists outside of our minds, either, as some new ager's would allege. It just means that we don't perceive reality in a "direct" way, as it is. This is well known and has been well known for some time now. 

 

Everything you just tried throwing at me are common straw men. They don't make any sense against what the statement means. You will hit a brick wall and yet you will still not perceive the brick wall as the "thing in itself," to use Kantian idealist terminology. It's some form of energy that your mind assigns what you perceive within as the brick wall you are looking at. You'll hit that collection of energy, whatever it actually is. Because no doubt it is something. It's a wild, wacky world out there with tons, and tons, and tons of discovery awaiting us - I have no doubt. 

 

20 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Science would shut down and stop???

This is insane! A comprehensible Reality is the basis for science. We observe and will continue to observe all that is before us. 

 

If we already knew everything, if we already had all the answers, there would be no reason for science. Is that hard to understand? What would there be to learn and discover if we already knew everything about everything, hence cracked the code and gained ultimate knowledge of absolute reality? The point is that we don't know, and continue seeking answers. That should have been simple enough to understand. Why wasn't it? 

 

19 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Just to be clear, does evolution give us actual evidence or is it, in your mind, the best we have thus far?

 

If it's not actual, I'm not interested.

 

Does your tail bone mean anything to you? Manatee, Whale and Dolphin finger bones within their flippers? Again, these are off the cuff simplistic examples of actual evidence. When you take the religious bias blinders off, it's pretty straight forward actually. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

People who understand the arena generally don't take the "hole pokers" very seriously. Because their motives are transparent, first of all. Would they even admit if they were wrong?

You know, this works in the area of textual criticism,  historical veracity and exegetical work as well.

Those seeking to "poke holes" in the text have not been taken seriously by those who understand.

The motives are transparent They say they'll admit it if proven wrong but never do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

If we already knew everything, if we already had all the answers, there would be no reason for science. Is that hard to understand?

What are you doing? I already answered this:

"A comprehensible Reality is the basis for science. We observe and will continue to observe all that is before us."  

so no, it is not so hard to understand. BUT WE'LL NEVER GET THERE. 

 

I tell you what, though...continue revving up the condescending arrogance with me and we're done. It's becoming more frequent and I don't appreciate it. Not from you. From others here it is to be expected. I won't subject myself to it here. 

On 7/24/2019 at 2:56 PM, LuthAMF said:

Man has no inherent value above that of a slug in your BigBang world and history becomes random chance events. 

I stated this and would like a response.

 

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

Does your tail bone meaning anything to you? Manatee, Whale and Dolphin finger bones within their flippers? Again, these are off the cuff simplistic example of actual evidence.

We do not possess a prehensile tailbone. Man has never possessed flippers. So while on one hand you'll dismiss Nietzche, Marx and Freud as being limited by their day, you agree with them that we're no more than animals.

So tell me: when did man decide he had a dignity above the cockroach? What does the cockroach think of this arrogance? When did man start asserting himself as superior? Superior to what and in what manner? Are we going to witness a real Rise of the Planet of the Apes? What if???? What if Evolution turns to Devolution and we regress? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2019 at 12:43 PM, Joshpantera said:

No one is denying Genesis 1 because it pleases them. I could care less. What I care about is figuring what's true and what's false.

I said Abiogenesis pleases because it denies Creation. 

And you've already admitted there is no such thing as true and false. There is only shades of "What if's". 

This is the classic answer in search of a problem. It goes nowhere.

On 7/24/2019 at 12:43 PM, Joshpantera said:

You are saying that you can't demonstrate Genesis 1 as true.

I am saying no such thing.  I am saying that in contrast to the implications of the purely random world you assume, it demonstrates truth about the world in a higher way. This is what has been repeatedly defended throughout history. One worldview against another. Each produces observable results. You said "I keep pressing you to be intellectually honest because I want to know if you're capable of it."

Intellectually honest. My "false dichotomies" and logical fallacies. How is it not intellectually honest and how is it a false dichotomy to look back through history and demonstrate beyond the shadow of doubt what each worldview system has produced and is producing? The FACTS OF HISTORY speak. 

 

How about you being intellectually honest as well then and admit you did not arrive at your position by any overwhelming evidence to the contrary against scripture but due to simple personal preference for what YOU determine to be fact and true?

We aren't neutral just waiting for a nudge in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2019 at 10:27 PM, LuthAMF said:

You know, this works in the area of textual criticism,  historical veracity and exegetical work as well.

Those seeking to "poke holes" in the text have not been taken seriously by those who understand.

The motives are transparent They say they'll admit it if proven wrong but never do. 

 

Who is proven wrong, where are they proven wrong and about what? Would you like to use Matthew quote mining Isaiah as the first example? That would be a good one. 

 

On 7/29/2019 at 11:21 PM, LuthAMF said:

I tell you what, though...continue revving up the condescending arrogance with me and we're done. It's becoming more frequent and I don't appreciate it. Not from you. From others here it is to be expected. I won't subject myself to it here. 

 

Like I've said, christianity in and of itself is probably one of the most condescending and arrogant religions the planet has to offer. Seriously. Your religion is right, everyone else's religion is wrong. Your interpretation of the bible among other christian's is right, all others interpretations wrong. Is it possible to get any more condescending and arrogant than that? I am serious about the question. How is it possible for an atheist to be as condescending as a christian, let alone surpass it? 

 

And I'm sure people reading along can see that it's this fundamental, underlying arrogance inherent in christian belief which drives your condescending attitude towards naturalism and science. That's what this is. That's why we're here. You came to ex-C speaking arrogantly and making bold claims to members and I called you out, and called you aside. And now here we are. Let's not lose track of the back and fourth and how it started and why. Since then I've felt like being friendly, at least in the sense of being friendly between opposing views. Where you think I'm destined for hell or something and know so much better than I do, and I think you're naive for paying lip service to such evident nonsense. We disagree, yes. We're each arrogant in our own ways, of course. But none of this arrogance is one sided from my view of what's going on here. We're taking the same position towards one another, aren't we? 

 

On 7/29/2019 at 11:21 PM, LuthAMF said:
On 7/24/2019 at 2:56 PM, LuthAMF said:

Man has no inherent value above that of a slug in your BigBang world and history becomes random chance events. 

I stated this and would like a response.

 

To me, personally, I'm looking at the "what if's" most of the time. The truth is that I don't know. We are conscious, living beings. There must be some value behind a universe where the properties of that universe can evolve into seeing, thinking and perceiving creatures. Of course that's an assumption on my part. But if we exist in one of infinite universes, and life exists here, and repetition is a factor in infinite scenarios, then life would be a recurring situation that goes on and on. Somewhere in that infinite scope I'd assume that reason, value and purpose plays into it somewhere. Purpose for the fact that experience exists and recur's over and over again. Maybe I'm wrong. But maybe I'm right. 

 

On 7/29/2019 at 11:21 PM, LuthAMF said:

We do not possess a prehensile tailbone. Man has never possessed flippers. So while on one hand you'll dismiss Nietzche, Marx and Freud as being limited by their day, you agree with them that we're no more than animals.

So tell me: when did man decide he had a dignity above the cockroach? What does the cockroach think of this arrogance? When did man start asserting himself as superior? Superior to what and in what manner? Are we going to witness a real Rise of the Planet of the Apes? What if???? What if Evolution turns to Devolution and we regress?

 

Concerning tail bones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

 

No one said man possessed flippers. What I said is that evidence of evolution is all around us. Just look at these simplistic examples of manatee and dolphins (which were land mammals which evolved into aquatic mammals).

 

 

 

 

image.jpeg
 

 

The self consciousness of man likely led to the superiority complexes we now see and experience, is my guess. The arrogance that eventually led to the evolution of the christian faith within western religion too, in fact. That was a digressive evolution in a lot of ways when put into perspective. Because a lot of sophistication of the past was lost after christianity took over and the western world digressed into the "dark ages." That's an interesting issue actually. We went down and then slowly began to build back up again in terms of sophistication and knowledge. But this arrogance, condescending attitude towards others seems to have informed much of the protestant reformation, Calvinist ideas, predestination, and so on. The entire issue of a special elect is pure human arrogance coming at us in religious form if you ask me. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a link to a thread in our science verses religion section about the issue of religious scientist's and their beliefs which are lacking in scientific evidence: 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The demonstration has been made actually. It doesn't really matter how much further it goes at this point.

You could have said that at the start and saved us both the time.

 

Since you have already determined this, I suppose it matters nothing what I say or what anyone has ever said. You're right; they're wrong.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Folks and lurkers, note the projection from this one.

Oh good night, dude...get a clue.

And btw...

Intruder alert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.