(February 9, 2010 at 10:28 am)Darwinian Wrote: Doubletalk? That's the pot calling the kettle black :S

Howso, Darwinian? I have made it clear what my basis is for my worldview. I ask you why you think it is intellectually unsafe and you do not provide an answer but some comment skirting the issue. I ask you what you think an intellectually safe starting point is, and you are silent. You may not like my perspective, but I have certainly be clear about what it is.

rjh4 said: "I am not coming from a biologists point of view but am looking at it from a Biblical point of view".

The reason the bible in my opinion is an intellectually unsafe starting position is simply because it is not based on known fact, but rather so called divine revelation. If I was to accept the bible as the word of god as you do I would have to accept every other so called holy script making the same claims of divine origin. In my opinion faith based on someone elses claimed revelations is not a valid starting point for any position. This is especially true if the so called revelations have been proven erroneous on those things we consider fact such as astronomy, and certain scientific principles that can't be disputed etc. Not to mention the fact that an atheist does not see the bible as you do, it is not a revelation but at least in my view a collection of myths and history mixed with fiction.

(February 9, 2010 at 11:25 am)chatpilot Wrote: rjh4 said: "I am not coming from a biologists point of view but am looking at it from a Biblical point of view".

The reason the bible in my opinion is an intellectually unsafe starting position is simply because it is not based on known fact, but rather so called divine revelation. If I was to accept the bible as the word of god as you do I would have to accept every other so called holy script making the same claims of divine origin. In my opinion faith based on someone elses claimed revelations is not a valid starting point for any position. This is especially true if the so called revelations have been proven erroneous on those things we consider fact such as astronomy, and certain scientific principles that can't be disputed etc. Not to mention the fact that an atheist does not see the bible as you do, it is not a revelation but at least in my view a collection of myths and history mixed with fiction.

CP, fair enough (I certainly know this from our other conversations). I would be interested in hearing what your "intellectually safe starting position" is though.

A fair intellectual starting point for me would be what I know as facts through what I observe in the world around me. For example, I am sure that infirmity in general is not the product of demons attacking mankind for his sinful ways, but rather the very natural act of microbes, viruses, and of course our own in some instances weak immune systems. Some diseases are genetic some are hereditary etc. etc. These are known facts that have been proven by science and observed by professionals in the fields of modern medicine.

I don't know if you have noticed rjh4 that I don't get too involved with philosophical discussions about god even though I am familiar with the subject matter. The reason for my reluctance is that I feel that philosophy just complicates an already complicated matter even further. People get caught up with labels and definitions of this and that and all they achieve is taking the various discussions to the point of absurdity. I like to be practical and down to earth, I don't have time to get caught up in the so called attributes of god when in my opinion if there were a god no one can know those attributes.

My main contention is that most theists like to argue that science is an invention of man, but it is a systematic way to understand the world around us based on observation and reason. Faith is also an invention of man as well, but unlike scientific principles it is based on nothing more than what someone said in a book claiming to be of divine origin.

(February 9, 2010 at 3:30 pm)chatpilot Wrote: A fair intellectual starting point for me would be what I know as facts through what I observe in the world around me. For example, I am sure that infirmity in general is not the product of demons attacking mankind for his sinful ways, but rather the very natural act of microbes, viruses, and of course our own in some instances weak immune systems. Some diseases are genetic some are hereditary etc. etc. These are known facts that have been proven by science and observed by professionals in the fields of modern medicine.

It is interesting how your safe intellectual starting point is what you personally know and observe...but then you seem to be saying that what you know about some of these things is not what you have actually observed and concluded but what someone else has observed and concluded. (Unless, of course, you are a microbiologist, virologist, and/or an immunologist. In which case, I withdraw my objection. ) So it seems that your intellectually safe starting point is the conclusions reached by scientists at any particular point in time. It also seems to me that your reliance upon others requires faith, but I'm sure you would disagree. Frankly, I don't see that much difference between us except for the object of our faith (your objects of faith being yourself and scientists and my objects of faith being God and the Bible as the Word of God). I'll stick with my presuppositions.

rjh4 said: "Unless, of course, you are a microbiologist, virologist, and/or an immunologist".

Your contention is invalid for the simple fact that you don't have to be an expert in any of those sciences to observe viral activity etc. All it takes is a good text book and a microscope and you can see everything that is illustrated in the book. There are experiments you can conduct at home if you are so inclined to prove some of sciences most basic principles. Unlike your god theory, there is no way to prove he/it exists at all. That is why it is not good when theists try to use real world analogies to compare their faith in their god to. God is not testable in the real world and is therefore a myth until proven differently.

It truly takes faith on your part to accept the god theory and stick to it in the absence of proof of this god. Also, you are relying on a book that was written at least 5 or 6 thousand years ago if you include the Old Testament by many unanimous authors. Not only are the authors unidentified but the stories in that book have been edited and retouched who knows how many times and in how many ways. At least in science when we don't know we simply say we don't know and that we are working on theories to get us closer to the facts. Theists make claims of certainty and facts that they have no idea whether they are valid aside from their own convictions that they are based on your faith.

(February 9, 2010 at 9:27 am)rjh4 Wrote:

(February 9, 2010 at 6:30 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Still to see evidence for a young earth Rjh4

I will point to the Bible as the main evidence. Remember, I look at things from a Biblical perspective and interprets facts from a Biblical perspective, and have readily admitted this over and over again. The problem is you do not want to step out of your own paradigm for even one minute to look at things from a different point of view. Our presuppositions are entirely different and you seem to be asking me for evidence for a young earth from within your presuppositions (i.e., you seem to want me to give you evidence that forces you to see a young earth given your presuppositions). I don't think this can be done as I don't think your presuppositions will allow you to think in that manner. Anything I could show you, you would reinterpret from within your own presuppositions and you will arrive at a different conclusion. I would suggest you look into your own worldview, figure out what your presuppositions (first principles) are from which you build your worldview, and then get back to me and we can discuss our presuppositions and where they lead.

Yes very true,

Because my "presuppostions" are based on the evidence presented that shows that the world and

the universe it is in are billions of years old, Astronomy,Geology,Physics, Paleontology, in fact, all of the

physical sciences.

Whereas yours is based on the bible, which has no evidence to support it whatsoever.

(February 10, 2010 at 6:41 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Because my "presuppostions" are based on the evidence presented that shows that the world and

the universe it is in are billions of years old, Astronomy,Geology,Physics, Paleontology, in fact, all of the

physical sciences.

Whereas yours is based on the bible, which has no evidence to support it whatsoever.

Zen, your presuppositions (first principles) are foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption (from wiki). So your presuppositions are not based on the evidence as you put it, your presuppositions are the basis for your interpretation of evidence. You have it backwards. So if you want to rethink what your presuppositions (first principles) are and get back to me, I am certainly willing to discuss this with you.

---

(February 9, 2010 at 6:11 pm)chatpilot Wrote: All it takes is a good text book and a microscope and you can see everything that is illustrated in the book. There are experiments you can conduct at home if you are so inclined to prove some of sciences most basic principles.

So, CP, have you done all the experiments and observations to confirm all that you hold to?

(February 9, 2010 at 10:26 am)rjh4 Wrote: From a Biblical perspective (criteria) we are different from and greater than the animals and the criteria is because the Bible says so. [my emphasis].

That's what I have issue with. Do you not see accepting the Bible because the Bible says so as completely circular and unthinking?


EvF

(February 10, 2010 at 10:25 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(February 9, 2010 at 10:26 am)rjh4 Wrote: From a Biblical perspective (criteria) we are different from and greater than the animals and the criteria is because the Bible says so. [my emphasis].

That's what I have issue with. Do you not see accepting the Bible because the Bible says so as completely circular and unthinking?


EvF

The issue was not accepting the Bible. The issue was whether or not man was an animal. I was merely indicating that since I use the Bible as my criteria for determining whether or not man was an animal, I conclude that man is not an animal. If I used a biologist's classification system as my criteria for determining whether or not man was an animal, I would conclude as you do that man is an animal.

Consequently, I do not think I was using circular reasoning at all. I think you are extrapolating from what I said relative to the issue at hand into an area that was not even being discussed. On the other hand, I would also agree that the wording of my sentence that you quoted was less than crystal clear on my part and may have contributed to such extrapolation.