Extremely improbable based on our understanding of biology. It's also extremely improbable that we will find anything in the future to eliminate this improbability.

What I meant by cherrypicking is that you take only good parts of the bible and ignore the bad ones.

(September 25, 2012 at 10:44 pm)System of Solace Wrote: Extremely improbable based on our understanding of biology. It's also extremely improbable that we will find anything in the future to eliminate this improbability.

What I meant by cherrypicking is that you take only good parts of the bible and ignore the bad ones.

So what is wrong with cherrypicking? I see it done with other historical texts all the time.

Why is it extremely improbable? I observe things happen often that seem to defy our current understanding of biology, that doesn't mean they do, but when such observations are often made, doesn't that increase the probability that biology has a lot of room for large changes, just as it has in the past?

(September 25, 2012 at 9:55 pm)treshbond Wrote: Personally I don't have any problem with accepting the supernatural as 'possible', the issue is how 'probable' it is. Years ago the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was a supernatural concept, it ceased to become so when a means came about to test and measure it.

It is just as possible that what is considered supernatural now may become natural once the necessary technology (means to test and measure) is developed. Of course until that happens it is still super natural but just as with the orbit of earth, many began to believe it revolved around the sun before it was firmly established as fact.

Essentially what you seem to be saying is that the supernatural is merely the natural that we haven't yet discovered. So what exactly are we discussing again?

(September 25, 2012 at 9:55 pm)treshbond Wrote: That means they acted in faith based upon evidence. Much like one has faith that when they drive down a road they have never personally traveled, that it will hold the weight of the car and not collapse beneath them. Why? because they know there are systems in place to ensure consistent construction standards etc. Does that mean it is not an act of faith? I say it is faith, but it has a reasonable basis. My goal is to determine how reasonable it is to consider the Bible a reliable source of information about what could possibly be true. In other words, how probable it is.

You're conflating faith with reasonable expectation. It can be said to be an act of faith to drive on an unfamilar road, but not faith in the sense you are trying to define into existence. AronRa expressed it best when he spoke about the country ballad "Jesus, take the wheel". Essentially, using the analogy of an out of control car, the song advises that, when your life goes careering out of control, you should take your hands from off the steering wheel and let Jesus take control; you should just rely on faith that a) Jesus is real, b) he is able and willing to intervene in your life and c) he has your best interests at heart. Aron said - not altogether seriously - to take your hands off the wheel before the car goes out of control and see what happens.

(September 26, 2012 at 7:16 am)treshbond Wrote: So what is wrong with cherrypicking? I see it done with other historical texts all the time.

Caarefully selecting which bits of data will support your argument and rejecting or debasing the rest is a fallacious and dishonest debating tactic. You will be called out on it.

You can honestly say it will be possible for a rotting body to suddenly rise up out of a tomb with no wounds and then levitate into the sky?

[quote='TaraJo' pid='337923' dateline='1347977324']
The Substantial Reality which underlines all the outward manifestations and appearances which we call them by the terms <Material Universe>, <the Phenomena of Life>, <Matter>, <Energy> and in short all that is apparent to our material senses is SPIRIT which in itself is UNKNOWABLE and UNDEFINABLE! But It is may be considered and thought as a
UNIVERSAL LIVING MIND! The universe with its parts and units is a Mental Creation of that LIVING MIND,it has its existence in that LIVING MIND,subjected to the LAWS of Created Things and in that LIVING MIND we move,live and have our being! The Mental Nature of the Universe explains all the varied mental and psychic phenomena which attract a large portion of the public attention and which without such an explanation are non-understandable and defy scientific treatment! Some they call it God but the wise ones they call it <THE ALL>!
Also the wise ones do not worship the <ALL> but they use Its MENTAL LAWS for their prosperity and well-being! I do not know if you are ware
but energy,matter and power are totally subordinate to the Mastery of Mind!

This thread is about being convinced. Perhaps my posts have no place here because I am interested in finding out to what degree the Bible / faith in Jesus is unconvincing.

I find most atheists accuse the Bible as having absolutely no credibility at all and yet in my studies thus far I find that although faith in the Bible as inerrant is certainly blind, I can't agree that it is totally without basis and that I have a degree of respect for even some fundamentalist christians I meet who can demonstrate that they have given the facts serious, although misdirected consideration.

One of the main reasons I think this way is based upon how amazingly well the Bible has been preserved in comparison to other ancient texts. I am impressed by it, without being convinced by it.

So if anyone has any facts rather than opinions to establish that the Bible has not been well preserved I am interested to know them.

---

(September 26, 2012 at 6:01 pm)System of Solace Wrote: You can honestly say it will be possible for a rotting body to suddenly rise up out of a tomb with no wounds and then levitate into the sky?

I think it is unwise to say anything is absolutely impossible. Just not reasonable or probable. I can't think of any way in which that could happen, but that which is possible is not limited by my mind.

If it did happen in front of witnesses who were able to examine it, as extra ordinary as it would seem at first, as we understand it, it would no longer be so incredible. History is full of such developments (perhaps not quite so incredible, but you get my meaning) who are we to place a limit upon how predictable the unknown is.

---

Stimbo,

If it is so unethical, then why do so many scholars do this all the time? It is simply a way of sifting out the crap and keeping what has value. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I have no personal agenda in promoting certain parts of the Bible over others. I am simply stating that to my knowledge it is not entirely devoid of merit.

---

Stimbo,

You are correct about faith. At least as far as its dictionary definition goes. I was thinking of faith in terms of the way it is defined in the Bible, which is also an expectation, which is what Christians are employing.

So to clarify, it is ok to have a reasonable expectation. The question is, how reasonable is the expectation that the Bible is a reliable book. I say it is more reasonable to think so than most atheists would say it has. And the main reason for thinking that, is on the basis of how well it has been preserved.

So if it is so unreasonable, please provide facts to establish this.

(September 27, 2012 at 8:49 am)treshbond Wrote: Stimbo,

If it is so unethical, then why do so many scholars do this all the time? It is simply a way of sifting out the crap and keeping what has value. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

First of all, please take a moment to acquaint yourself with the quote function. I say this not out of malice but in the interests of clarity of communication.

It is perfectly permissable to quote from others, particularly those more knowledgable in whatever subject is under discussion, in order to reinforce the points being raised. It only becomes a fallacy - unethical, as you incorrectly attributed to me - when the words of your chosen authority are carefully selected so as to include only those parts that agree with your argument and discard the rest. It's not a matter of the ratio between babies and bathwater; it is the suppression of evidence. As a matter of fact, it's not even universally unethical. In a courtroom, for example, lawyers are not obliged to include evidence that harms their case.

This is not a courtroom; anything you say will be used in evidence.

(September 27, 2012 at 8:49 am)treshbond Wrote: I have no personal agenda in promoting certain parts of the Bible over others. I am simply stating that to my knowledge it is not entirely devoid of merit.

And until you can present something to support what you state, you are expressing nothing more than opinion. For example, which parts have merit and why?

(September 27, 2012 at 8:49 am)treshbond Wrote: Stimbo,

You are correct about faith. At least as far as its dictionary definition goes. I was thinking of faith in terms of the way it is defined in the Bible, which is also an expectation, which is what Christians are employing.

So to clarify, it is ok to have a reasonable expectation. The question is, how reasonable is the expectation that the Bible is a reliable book. I say it is more reasonable to think so than most atheists would say it has. And the main reason for thinking that, is on the basis of how well it has been preserved.

So if it is so unreasonable, please provide facts to establish this.

Interesting how you expect facts to be handed to you when you in return have provided none such so far. That may sound intolerant or whatever the word of the day happens to be, but all I see in your posts is opinion and bald assertion. In what way is the bible a reliable book, especially when it's one hundred and eighty degress about-face about so much of what we know to be fact (the Universe was not made in a week, bats are not birds, sprinkling avian blood and chanting magic incantations is not a viable cure for leprosy, etc)?

Faith in terms of reasonable expectation, as you agree, is demonstrable. Faith in terms of a baseless conviction in spite of, and against, evidence is not. Switching contexts midsentence between the two definitions is unreasonable and needs to be discouraged in the interests of honest discussion.

I note in passing that your religious views seem pretty certain so far.

Stimbo,

I have tried to acquaint myself with the quote system. I confess I don't properly understand it. If I don't want everything said in the post I am replying to quoted, how do I delete the unwanted quotes without messing up the quote boxes? I am not trying to suppress what other have said, I am simply trying to avoid an unnecessarily long post containing something I am not replying to.

I see what you are saying about suppressing evidence. I will endeavor to avoid doing so, and certainly have no intention of that kind.

(September 27, 2012 at 3:59 am)desciple Wrote: [quote='TaraJo' pid='337923' dateline='1347977324']
The Substantial Reality which underlines all the outward manifestations and appearances which we call them by the terms <Material Universe>, <the Phenomena of Life>, <Matter>, <Energy> and in short all that is apparent to our material senses is SPIRIT which in itself is UNKNOWABLE and UNDEFINABLE! But It is may be considered and thought as a
UNIVERSAL LIVING MIND! The universe with its parts and units is a Mental Creation of that LIVING MIND,it has its existence in that LIVING MIND,subjected to the LAWS of Created Things and in that LIVING MIND we move,live and have our being! The Mental Nature of the Universe explains all the varied mental and psychic phenomena which attract a large portion of the public attention and which without such an explanation are non-understandable and defy scientific treatment! Some they call it God but the wise ones they call it <THE ALL>!
Also the wise ones do not worship the <ALL> but they use Its MENTAL LAWS for their prosperity and well-being! I do not know if you are ware
but energy,matter and power are totally subordinate to the Mastery of Mind!

Someone possesses a first class ticket on the New Age Woo Train.

(September 27, 2012 at 6:10 pm)treshbond Wrote: Stimbo,

I have tried to acquaint myself with the quote system. I confess I don't properly understand it. If I don't want everything said in the post I am replying to quoted, how do I delete the unwanted quotes without messing up the quote boxes? I am not trying to suppress what other have said, I am simply trying to avoid an unnecessarily long post containing something I am not replying to.

I see what you are saying about suppressing evidence. I will endeavor to avoid doing so, and certainly have no intention of that kind.

A quote begins with a tag [quote], usually when you use the reply button, it will have some extra info, like the nick of the person and the post ID (pid) and a dateline. It then ends with a closing tag [/ quote]
You can nest some of them, so you have quotes within quotes.

Just make sure you have as many opening tags, as closing ones.
I admit they can be hard to spot when editing text from someone else, so just keep your eyes peeled!