(July 16, 2016 at 10:13 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: [...]However, you only talked about the difficulties on one side of the discussion.  What is the difference in origin of life, and resurrection of life?   Is it time or the quantity that is the issue? [...]

The issue is mainly complexity. Simpler lifeforms, like bacteria can be pretty resistant and many can enter the state of anabiosis, in which they can survive even incredibly harsh conditions, then resume their life functions even after a fairly long time. Some kinds can live in the proximity of underwater volcanoes, some can potentially survive space travel. But that's because they're many orders of magnitude less complex than a human body, which depends on a great number of very fragile, sophisticated and interconnected systems to stay alive and function.

As far as origin of life is concerned - if life was to start spontaneously, it would have to be much simpler than pretty much any organisms living on earth right now; perhaps something as "simple" as self-replicating chain of amino-acids, that would start the process of evolution, creating more complex forms that would replace them, over billions of years. But of course - we don't have archaeological evidence of such early life-forms, because they had no hard parts, that would fossilize. And we haven't yet been able to recreate abiogenesis, or observe it anywhere else in the Universe, so the jury is still out on this one.

(July 15, 2016 at 2:55 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok... so why do you say that science has "proven" that a man who has been dead for three days cannot come alive again?

Even the simplest life requires the specific arrangement of a complex sequence in order to carry out the functions for life.  In the case of a being that was once alive, the material is already present and arranged.  It just needs to be made living again.  I would agree, that in Christ's case that some repair was necessary; however is this any more difficult than the arrangement in the first place?    Keep in mind as well, that it was not just natural forces and random chance, that are behind the resurrection of Jesus.  The description attributes an outside and intelligent interaction (God) as the cause.  

So by what distinction do you say that science as proven against the one, and yet accept the other?

You're being a little self-serving in your description there, I feel. I mean, just to begin with, the specific mechanism by which this specific resurrection you're discussing is purported to have been carried out has never been observed and, in fact, is directly contradictory to many of our observations. Now, one could make the case, if memory serves, for specific kinds of biological resurrection based on animals who put themselves into suspended animation and come back from being super near death, but the thing is that if you're going to dip your hand into science you need to apply it consistently: such restorative abilities have never been observed in human bodies, after all. They also happen in very specific conditions not present in the resurrection account.

You ask whether simply instilling life into pre-arranged material is any more difficult than abiogenesis, and the simple answer is that we don't know. It may very well be impossible, but we've got no data with which to even begin to test it, other than those observations on why it can't happen- cell degeneration, the apparent non-viability of restarting certain human organs, etc. Science is a probabilistic field based on available data, which at the moment suggests that human bodies do not resurrect even a few hours after true death, let alone several days.

Abiogenesis is a different matter entirely, partly due to the fact that the arrangement of physical matter that might give rise to that would be a great deal simpler than a complete human body, but also because we have experimental data that suggests that it can happen. Incomplete data is still data, and it's more than we have for bodily, to say nothing of divine, resurrection.

Why would you even begin to take such a story seriously in the first place? Out of all of the magical stories in all the books, this one?

And if you've already accepted the "God" proposition then really science is completely out the window. He can do anything, by magic. Resurrecting a human is peanuts.

Science is not working backwards from desired conclusions.

(July 16, 2016 at 3:47 pm)robvalue Wrote: Why would you even begin to take such a story seriously in the first place? Out of all of the magical stories in all the books, this one?

There is that: even assuming we take resurrection accounts seriously- not based on the strength of the evidence, like science would, but based on the exceedingly weak "it's not impossible," standards that theists suddenly develop only when discussing their theistic beliefs- then that puts a whole bunch of religions back on the table, not just christianity. It even puts a series of alternative explanations for what happened to Jesus on that table too, many of them far more parsimonious than god magic, in that they don't rely on the supernatural.

So the truth is that moving from what we've established, even if we take the argument seriously, directly to confirmation of the new testament account, is simply the christian tipping their hand, not a cogent conclusion to be drawn from what's at our disposal. It's just "here's my presupposition, so..."

(July 15, 2016 at 1:23 pm)robvalue Wrote: I want to give you credit for abandoning the literal 6 day creation Steve

The literal creation story is absolutely ludicrous and at direct odds with reality, so I applaud you for cutting off that dead wood.

Since in Jewish reckoning a day began with the evening, it's kinda hard to interpret "and the evening and the morning were the fifth day" as anything but a literal 24 hour day. Abandoning the literal interpretation in an effort to make the babile fit intoscience is just disingenuous obfuscation (got bored saying bullshit all the time and thought I'd try something more precise).

The problem here is that people start with the conclusion already in place that the bible must be true and make sense, somehow. So when it's saying things that are simply untrue, it can't be literal. By this kind of standard, anything can be "shown" to be true though. If you didn't start with this conclusion, you'd instead probably decide it's just a story and has nothing factual to tell us at all. Just some occasional dubious and biased historical accounts.

Still, I'd much rather have theists who bend their religion to fit reality rather than those who bend reality to fit their religion (creationists etc.)

Just like I'd rather have people take their kids to the doctor and then pray after that, I'd rather they became scientifically literate, and then rationalised their religion afterwards. That's much better than stubbornly opposing science (and reality) when it contradicts their narrative, or praying instead of taking their kid to the doctor.

(July 15, 2016 at 3:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 15, 2016 at 12:21 pm)SteveII Wrote: It can comment on the reasons why we think some cause was supernatural. It cannot say whether something is or is not. 

At every turn this gets more inconsistent.  When it;s done commenting, and the comment is "didn't happen this way", we rationalize.  We exempt.  We forget that we ever mentioned science as a metric or an authority and say "but we don't know for sure".  

Quote:No they are not god of the gaps beliefs. From Wikipedia: "God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence." Christians believe that God created the universe because 1) he said he did and 2) it is foundational to theology that God created the universe for a specific purpose: for us. Same with life. God creating life endows is with purpose and value.

Your continued insistence upon this shady territory of what you feel cannot be disporoven by metrics which you do not accept as authoratative in the first place makes this yet another disingenuous comment.  You -do- support your belief with those gaps, you even go to the trouble of manufacturing them.  Repeatedly.   Perhaps that's because you realize that "he said so, and we need it to be true" is rationally insufficient, and ofc you do so in the face of good science regardless.   At no point do I see you discarding this contradictory narrative for the reasons you've offered.  

Quote:I have abandoned 'god of the gap' arguments (not beliefs). I would have previously argued life...therefore God, etc. A belief I have changed my mind on is the literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago.

Except that this is a true religious belief...it was done supernaturally.  As such the metrics you offered for discarding them are inapplicable, as per your comments on the matter.  I don't think that you've arranged the sets of what you do and don't believe in this way.  I think that this, amusingly, is yet another contradictory belief which you will not discard.  

You think YEC is silly, and it is...but it isn't any more or less silly than miracles, or supernatural causes, or the endless prattling on about disproving your religious beliefs.  This is why I asked for an example.  Don;t you think that a YEC can defend this belief by using exactly the same sort of waffling you've engaged in, in just this thread?  I;m not personally interested in the batshit things you believe.  I won't ask you what they are or to prove them.  I'm trying to put together a cogent description of how you manage your beliefs, whatever they may be.

To sum this up, I believe that where core theology is not on the line, we can listen to what science thinks is the best explanation and go forward to see where that leads. In my opinion, science has not produced contradictory proof of anything that would nullify core theology if true.  Sure, our understanding has shifted over the centuries, but looking closer, it really does not affect core theological issues. If science gets around to disproving any core theological concept, then we can look at it on a case-by-case basis.

YEC is a good example. Why hang your hat on something that all indications are that it is not the best explanation for the observations? Time will tell so why fight about it like it is a core theological concept when it really isn't?

Regarding miracles, an event either is or is not. Again, case by case. 

What do you think that I 'exempt' from scientific scrutiny that I have no business exempting if I am to remain consistent?

(July 18, 2016 at 12:48 pm)SteveII Wrote: To sum this up, I believe that where core theology is not on the line, we can listen to what science thinks is the best explanation and go forward to see where that leads.

Why should this matter...why is this an acceptable metric for exemption to the very standards you propose..and are you even applying the method you offered by making this exemption?

Quote:In my opinion, science has not produced contradictory proof of anything that would nullify core theology if true.  Sure, our understanding has shifted over the centuries, but looking closer, it really does not affect core theological issues. If science gets around to disproving any core theological concept, then we can look at it on a case-by-case basis.

Why would it matter whether or not it had, if you exempt it on principle....and on top of that suggest that no comment can be made on it anyway, because supernatural?  

Quote:YEC is a good example. Why hang your hat on something that all indications are that it is not the best explanation for the observations? Time will tell so why fight about it like it is a core theological concept when it really isn't?

No it's not..if I can use the word "supernatural" to rescue it...or simply mention that it -is- core theology....just not yours.  

Quote:Regarding miracles, an event either is or is not. Again, case by case. 

What do you think that I 'exempt' from scientific scrutiny that I have no business exempting if I am to remain consistent?

: looks up :   

You can't get from science to theology. If you could, theology would also be science.

I commend people who try to follow science, but there's a reason science is kept out of it... it's not about reality. It's about stories people desperately want to be true.

If you have to hide something from scrutiny, it's probably bullshit.

(July 18, 2016 at 12:48 pm)SteveII Wrote: To sum this up, I believe that where core theology is not on the line, we can listen to what science thinks is the best explanation and go forward to see where that leads.

Well, congrats on exempting yourself from any form of rational discussion then, because "science is to be respected, but only in those areas where it doesn't conflict with my presupposition," is one of the most profoundly intellectually dishonest things I've ever read.

Quote: In my opinion, science has not produced contradictory proof of anything that would nullify core theology if true.  Sure, our understanding has shifted over the centuries, but looking closer, it really does not affect core theological issues. If science gets around to disproving any core theological concept, then we can look at it on a case-by-case basis.

It really depends on what your core theology is-and it would be your personal core theology, and nobody else's, because the thing about theology is that there are as many different kinds of it as there are theists. The only thing that they really seem to share is that, at their absolute base, core theology really just means "god of the gaps." So long as there's a place to stick the "there's a god," presupposition, it's always amazed me how many central tenets of any given religion end up outside of the "core theology."

Quote:YEC is a good example. Why hang your hat on something that all indications are that it is not the best explanation for the observations? Time will tell so why fight about it like it is a core theological concept when it really isn't?

Some christians think that the young earth is a component of a strictly literal interpretation of the bible, which is core to the religion in that without it, everything else within is questionable. What metric are you using to determine that they are wrong on this, yet your "core theology" is the really important bits of your religion? So far, you seem happy to just assume that.