(December 10, 2009 at 11:24 am)rjh4 Wrote: E...my statement was not intended to be some logical proof of what I believe so while I understand your point, I think it is misplaced here. And while I agree with you that just because it makes sense to me doesn't necessarily make it true, likewise I also think that just because scientists can carry out an experiment that convinces you that something like abiogenesis is possible doesn't mean that abiogenesis is necessarily true (i.e., that that is what actually happened in the past).

I understand you were not trying to say "This is why you should believe" but you are sharing your reasons and this is a public forum. If you're not prepared for criticism then don't say it.

Your analogy to abiogenesis fails because this isn't the result of what "makes sense" but honest scientific inquiry with rigorous skepticism. And I have never stated Scientists affirm that it is definitely how the first organism came to be and holds all those answers. There's still a lot to study there.

(December 10, 2009 at 11:24 am)rjh4 Wrote: You seemed to have made a leap here. I said something made sense to me. You seem to have taken this as saying that I came to my conclusion because I "like" the explanation. There is quite a difference.

Going back to what I actually said, does that baffle you? Don't you draw your conclusion based on what makes sense to you?

We can't accept everything as true based on our ability to understand it. There are things I cannot comprehend. Physics (beyond the basics) doesn't make sense to me, but I accept it because it's demonstrably true in the results it produces.

In layman's terms, yes, we do attempt to "make sense" of things, but we need to be careful that we're not ignoring good scientific explanations just because we cannot grasp the nitty gritty details.

What "makes sense" to us, is not demonstrably true. It "makes sense" that .9r repeating is less than 1, but as Adrian has tirelessly explained in other threads, it's equal to 1.

(December 10, 2009 at 11:24 am)rjh4 Wrote: Yes I have...but you would have to take my word on that as I doubt I could demonstrate it to you .

Indeed.

(December 10, 2009 at 11:24 am)rjh4 Wrote: Sounds quite similar to the True Scotsman Fallacy. If you read the Bible you can see.... I have read the Bible and I don't see.... Clearly you have not "honestly" read the Bible....

Maybe it is just that I have a different perspective on things than you and that perspective affects what I get out of the Bible compared to what you get out of it.

I was not making that fallacy, however, I was not clear in my use of the word honestly. I did not mean with some specific perspective, I meant that you truthfully have read the bible. Many Christians will feel that reading a Bible passage along with a pastor at Sunday Mass followed by his homily is a sufficient reading of the Bible. I grew up Catholic, we did not stress reading the Bible. The Bible was only read when a passage was chosen at church or school followed by prepared interpretations. That's not honestly reading the Bible.

Reading the Bible in it's entirety is what I meant. Which I am in the process of doing. It doesn't even have to be in order, in fact it's better not to because then you can miss some stuff if you just read cover to cover, but reading cover to cover is better than just reading selected passages.

(December 10, 2009 at 11:24 am)rjh4 Wrote: I did. And I concluded that you have chosen to believe what some scholars conclude about the Bible and I have chosen to believe what other scholars conclude about the Bible. There is so much out there written on both sides of things and I think some good points made on both sides. One could research forever and still end up at that same point...a lot written and supported on both sides. I continue to believe in God and the Bible because after reading much of the for and against and having lived as both a non-Christian and a Christian, the for (Christianity) makes more sense to me even if I do not understand everything about God and the Bible and cannot answer all good questions about it.

Okay, so you think I just go with some scholars where you go with others. That's the best answer you have?

This book is the supposed infallible word of God, if that were the case couldn't you easily refute me? Should I not even be able to show these blatant contradictions that put the existence of Jesus, the claim son of God in serious doubt?

The same halfhearted response could be used to claim Islam is true when criticized, yet you don't believe in Islam, do you?

You claim you have done honest questioning of the Bible and Christianity, which rightly stated I can't refute, yet everything you state suggests otherwise.

I put that post up looking for an honest debate on this issue, which never came, and this is the only response I've been given from you, when I had even posted it in response to a question you had asked in the first place. I'm a little disappointed, to say the least. If you don't care to refute the argument put forth, I can only speculate that you can't.

(December 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote:

(December 10, 2009 at 11:24 am)rjh4 Wrote: E...my statement was not intended to be some logical proof of what I believe so while I understand your point, I think it is misplaced here. And while I agree with you that just because it makes sense to me doesn't necessarily make it true, likewise I also think that just because scientists can carry out an experiment that convinces you that something like abiogenesis is possible doesn't mean that abiogenesis is necessarily true (i.e., that that is what actually happened in the past).

I understand you were not trying to say "This is why you should believe" but you are sharing your reasons and this is a public forum. If you're not prepared for criticism then don't say it.

Your analogy to abiogenesis fails because this isn't the result of what "makes sense" but honest scientific inquiry with rigorous skepticism. And I have never stated Scientists affirm that it is definitely how the first organism came to be and holds all those answers. There's still a lot to study there.

(December 10, 2009 at 11:24 am)rjh4 Wrote: You seemed to have made a leap here. I said something made sense to me. You seem to have taken this as saying that I came to my conclusion because I "like" the explanation. There is quite a difference.

Going back to what I actually said, does that baffle you? Don't you draw your conclusion based on what makes sense to you?

We can't accept everything as true based on our ability to understand it. There are things I cannot comprehend. Physics (beyond the basics) doesn't make sense to me, but I accept it because it's demonstrably true in the results it produces.

In layman's terms, yes, we do attempt to "make sense" of things, but we need to be careful that we're not ignoring good scientific explanations just because we cannot grasp the nitty gritty details.

What "makes sense" to us, is not demonstrably true. It "makes sense" that .9r repeating is less than 1, but as Adrian has tirelessly explained in other threads, it's equal to 1.

I like your wording with "We can't accept everything as true based on our ability to understand it. There are things I cannot comprehend. Physics (beyond the basics) doesn't make sense to me, but I accept it because it's demonstrably true in the results it produces. " To be able to demonstrate something spiritual to you, you'd have to allow the possibility that it exists. I think scientifically religion is approached with skepticism which defeats the possibility of demonstratability. To clarify I define skepticism as disbelief. Therefore if belief is required to acknowledge the spirit and allow it to demonstrate "God's truth" (I just made that phrase up) I don't think it's possible to identify it scientifically.

(December 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote:

(December 10, 2009 at 11:24 am)rjh4 Wrote: Yes I have...but you would have to take my word on that as I doubt I could demonstrate it to you .

Indeed.

(December 10, 2009 at 11:24 am)rjh4 Wrote: Sounds quite similar to the True Scotsman Fallacy. If you read the Bible you can see.... I have read the Bible and I don't see.... Clearly you have not "honestly" read the Bible....

Maybe it is just that I have a different perspective on things than you and that perspective affects what I get out of the Bible compared to what you get out of it.

I was not making that fallacy, however, I was not clear in my use of the word honestly. I did not mean with some specific perspective, I meant that you truthfully have read the bible. Many Christians will feel that reading a Bible passage along with a pastor at Sunday Mass followed by his homily is a sufficient reading of the Bible. I grew up Catholic, we did not stress reading the Bible. The Bible was only read when a passage was chosen at church or school followed by prepared interpretations. That's not honestly reading the Bible.

Reading the Bible in it's entirety is what I meant. Which I am in the process of doing. It doesn't even have to be in order, in fact it's better not to because then you can miss some stuff if you just read cover to cover, but reading cover to cover is better than just reading selected passages.

I've almost read it twice except I skipped numbers both times. I agree better not in order.

(December 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote:

(December 10, 2009 at 11:24 am)rjh4 Wrote: I did. And I concluded that you have chosen to believe what some scholars conclude about the Bible and I have chosen to believe what other scholars conclude about the Bible. There is so much out there written on both sides of things and I think some good points made on both sides. One could research forever and still end up at that same point...a lot written and supported on both sides. I continue to believe in God and the Bible because after reading much of the for and against and having lived as both a non-Christian and a Christian, the for (Christianity) makes more sense to me even if I do not understand everything about God and the Bible and cannot answer all good questions about it.

Okay, so you think I just go with some scholars where you go with others. That's the best answer you have?

This book is the supposed infallible word of God, if that were the case couldn't you easily refute me? Should I not even be able to show these blatant contradictions that put the existence of Jesus, the claim son of God in serious doubt?

The same halfhearted response could be used to claim Islam is true when criticized, yet you don't believe in Islam, do you?

You claim you have done honest questioning of the Bible and Christianity, which rightly stated I can't refute, yet everything you state suggests otherwise.

I put that post up looking for an honest debate on this issue, which never came, and this is the only response I've been given from you, when I had even posted it in response to a question you had asked in the first place. I'm a little disappointed, to say the least. If you don't care to refute the argument put forth, I can only speculate that you can't.

Well the Quran is supposed to be unchanged from it's inception and infallible but there's fallicies in that. The bible is supposed to be the word of God, but we all know it's been rewritten so many times. It's probably the hardest of the doctrines that I've read to get to the truth of. That's what they are though is doctrines not historical documents. Sure a good story to teach someone about your religion should include some facts of history they're farmiliar with. It should include lots of imagery and your basic beliefs. But the best fiction ever sold has some truth in it. I know that means I think the Bible is fiction, but if I can't trust man not to run this world into destruction, why would I trust him to not alter doctrines to suit selfish needs. I have tried to gather my beliefs from what seems rational to me from every source I can find.

tackattack Wrote:To be able to demonstrate something spiritual to you, you'd have to allow the possibility that it exists.

Anything is possible.

Quote: I think scientifically religion is approached with skepticism which defeats the possibility of demonstratability.

Approaching something skeptically simply means that you are not going to believe a claim on face value, you demand a level of verification before accepting the claim - This does not in any way defeat the possibility of demonstrability, in fact it makes it an absolute requirement for the claim to be taken seriously. It is the job of the person making the claim to provide the evidence for it and a falsifiable methodology that can be verified as logically sound to allow independent scientists to repeatably test the claim.

The reason this hasn't been done has nothing to do with scientists not being interesting in the topic, it has to do with the fact that no such falsifiable methodology has ever been presented that has met any of the requirements for being called demonstrably true.

Quote: To clarify I define skepticism as disbelief.

You don't get to define a word to suit your argument:

Skep-ti-cism:

A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.

Quote: Therefore if belief is required to acknowledge the spirit and allow it to demonstrate "God's truth" (I just made that phrase up) I don't think it's possible to identify it scientifically.

You could demonstrably infer many of these claims by measuring their effect on observable reality, such as demonstrating the effects of prayer in a situation. Again, you are the ones who need to define the specific claim you are making and what you would predict to observe in reality if that claim is true.

(December 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I understand you were not trying to say "This is why you should believe" but you are sharing your reasons and this is a public forum.

I wasn’t really sharing reasons. I was responding to Rhizo’s comment about stuggling to “maintain a belief in something that doesn’t make sense”.

(December 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: If you're not prepared for criticism then don't say it.

I am prepared for criticism. I just think yours was misplaced in this case.

(December 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Your analogy to abiogenesis fails because this isn't the result of what "makes sense" but honest scientific inquiry with rigorous skepticism. And I have never stated Scientists affirm that it is definitely how the first organism came to be and holds all those answers. There's still a lot to study there.

After reading it again, I agree my analogy was not a good one. I was just trying to point out that what you said to me also applies to you.

(December 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: We can't accept everything as true based on our ability to understand it.

True.

(December 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: There are things I cannot comprehend. Physics (beyond the basics) doesn't make sense to me, but I accept it because it's demonstrably true in the results it produces.

I think you are equating “understand” with “make sense” here and I do not think they are equatable. I would argue that while you might not “understand” advanced physics, it “makes sense” to you because of the results it produces.

(December 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: In layman's terms, yes, we do attempt to "make sense" of things, but we need to be careful that we're not ignoring good scientific explanations just because we cannot grasp the nitty gritty details.

I would agree with this to a degree. But remember…I have a different set of presuppositions than you. You seem to take science and the scientific method as the basis for all “truth”. Therefore, it seems like the consensus of scientists govern what you think is “true”. I take God and the Bible as the basis for “truth”. So where scientists come to some conclusion that conflicts with the Bible, I still believe the Bible.

(December 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I was not making that fallacy, however, I was not clear in my use of the word honestly. I did not mean with some specific perspective, I meant that you truthfully have read the bible. Many Christians will feel that reading a Bible passage along with a pastor at Sunday Mass followed by his homily is a sufficient reading of the Bible. I grew up Catholic, we did not stress reading the Bible. The Bible was only read when a passage was chosen at church or school followed by prepared interpretations. That's not honestly reading the Bible.

Reading the Bible in it's entirety is what I meant. Which I am in the process of doing. It doesn't even have to be in order, in fact it's better not to because then you can miss some stuff if you just read cover to cover, but reading cover to cover is better than just reading selected passages.

I clearly misunderstood what you were saying. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I have read the Bible completely two time and the entire NT several more times.

(December 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Okay, so you think I just go with some scholars where you go with others. That's the best answer you have?

That was not my answer, that was my conclusion.

(December 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: This book is the supposed infallible word of God, if that were the case couldn't you easily refute me?

To whose satisfaction? To yours? No.

(December 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Should I not even be able to show these blatant contradictions that put the existence of Jesus, the claim son of God in serious doubt?

Those things may put the existence of Jesus and His claim as the son of God in serious doubt for you but not me.

(December 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: You claim you have done honest questioning of the Bible and Christianity, which rightly stated I can't refute, yet everything you state suggests otherwise.

Sure sounds like you are saying that only those that have searched and come to agree with you have done “honest questioning”. Again, similar to the True Scotsman Fallacy.

(December 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I put that post up looking for an honest debate on this issue, which never came, and this is the only response I've been given from you, when I had even posted it in response to a question you had asked in the first place.

I merely asked a question. You responded with your post. I was not looking to debate. Sorry to have disappointed you.

(December 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: If you don't care to refute the argument put forth, I can only speculate that you can't.

Speculate all you like.

(December 12, 2009 at 4:21 pm)rjh4 Wrote: So where scientists come to some conclusion that conflicts with the Bible, I still believe the Bible.

Why?

(December 12, 2009 at 4:21 pm)rjh4 Wrote: So where scientists come to some conclusion that conflicts with the Bible, I still believe the Bible.

Oh, you believe the Earth was created before the sun? Cute.

To believe in God, is faith. The evidence for and against the belief is moot. However, to belive in something that is clearly false, such as a talking snake goes beyond faith and is simply stupidity. Don't tell me you believed a snake talked because it said so in a book and then call it "faith." Let's call it what it really is, "stupidity." It is in fact so stupid, it does not even dignify debate or discussion. Snakes didn't talk because mommy says so.

Where the Bible contradicts science, that is where we enter the realm of inane beliefs.

(December 12, 2009 at 4:59 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 12, 2009 at 4:21 pm)rjh4 Wrote: So where scientists come to some conclusion that conflicts with the Bible, I still believe the Bible.

Why?

My world view begins with the presuppositions that God exists and the Bible is the Word of God. I think this world view provides a better explanation for the reality that we exist in and answers more questions than a natualistic world view that says that man can determine how the reality that we exist in came to be. Given my world view and presuppositions, it follows that when there is some conflict between a conclusion drawn by man and the Bible, I will go with the Bible.

(December 12, 2009 at 9:34 pm)theVOID Wrote: Oh, you believe the Earth was created before the sun? Cute.

I do. Why do you believe that the sun came to be before the earth?

(December 13, 2009 at 10:37 am)rjh4 Wrote: My world view begins with the presuppositions that God exists and the Bible is the Word of God. I think this world view provides a better explanation for the reality that we exist in...

Assuming is not explaining. There is very little explanation in he bible especially on cosmological questions.. Science has done a much better job in that so far. So what makes you think the bible does?

(December 13, 2009 at 10:37 am)rjh4 Wrote: and answers more questions than a natualistic world view that says that man can determine how the reality that we exist in came to be.

That is a grossly distorted view of what science does. Science verifies and falsifies statements with empirical evidence, not just by stating claims. That's what theism does. Also naturalism at this moment already easliy answers many more questions than theism in a totally open and transparant way. In fact finding errors in the fabric of science is what partly drives the scientific endeavour itself.

(December 13, 2009 at 10:37 am)rjh4 Wrote: Given my world view and presuppositions, it follows that when there is some conflict between a conclusion drawn by man and the Bible, I will go with the Bible.

To recapitulate, in spite of ample evidence of the contrary you stubbornly stick to your first assumption, because your mamma told you. Does not sound as a feature to me.

(December 8, 2009 at 3:22 am)Darwinian Wrote: Aha, it's a secret code then. That's a shame because I've just bought a bible, my first ever, and was hoping to be able to understand it. What's the point in writing a book to explain the meaning of life and the reason for our existence if you have to believe it first to be able to understand it? :S

I'm sure theres one of those Dummies books like windows for dummies, Oh yes I remember what its called now.

The bible
ba dum tish