(March 19, 2014 at 8:14 am)discipulus Wrote: Are you knowledgeable enough on the Anthropic Cosmological Principle to participate in a debate whose topic would deal heavily with the principle?

I'm familiar with the basics, enough to know that any debate revolving around it would be simplistic and ultimately redundant, given that my entire position would be that any attempt to use an anthropic principle to prove some form of intelligent designer falls victim to selection bias to begin with, being that it puts the cart before the horse in terms of actually demonstrating the first premise.

That said, I get the feeling you had particular sections of the book in mind, rather than debating the anthropic principle itself. If you're willing to present those in a debate setting- assuming I'm correct in my thinking- then I'll be happy to play defensive and rebut them. Your quote from Craig doesn't exactly make me question my ability to do so, after all.

Oooo, a debate!

(March 19, 2014 at 9:31 am)Aral Gamelon Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 6:44 am)discipulus Wrote: Of course they mix. Many of the first men to champion the pursuits of scientists were bible believing Christians.

And? This proves the bible is compatible with science how?

(March 19, 2014 at 6:44 am)discipulus Wrote: Many great and brilliant minds in the academy today are Bible believing Christians.

I am a bible believing Christian. I also love science and hermeneutics. So your assertion that the Bible and science do not mix is unconvincing.

*taps foot*

You know, I saw Ken Ham do this same thing in the beginning of his debate. Yes, Christians can be scientists, this doesn't mean that science supports the bible. It fucking doesn't. I have to ask if you're a fundementalist or if you take a moderate standpoint on the bible, it makes a large difference.

(March 19, 2014 at 6:44 am)discipulus Wrote: Like I asked Deidre, so too I ask you to support your statement with some type of argument.

Answer to your standpoint and we may have a conversation.

Lol...I am not a fundamentalist. I do not know personally anyone who is. Nor is the Bible to always be interpreted literally. Any student of biblical hermeneutics can attest to this.

(March 19, 2014 at 9:53 am)discipulus Wrote: Lol...I am not a fundamentalist. I do not know personally anyone who is. Nor is the Bible to always be interpreted literally. Any student of biblical hermeneutics can attest to this.

So you're a cherry picker, got it.

(March 19, 2014 at 9:56 am)Aral Gamelon Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 9:53 am)discipulus Wrote: Lol...I am not a fundamentalist. I do not know personally anyone who is. Nor is the Bible to always be interpreted literally. Any student of biblical hermeneutics can attest to this.

So you're a cherry picker, got it.

I recognize the Bible is a compilation of various literary genres and keep this in mind when reading it. The same way you approach different types of genres when you read.

You also said science and the Bible don't mix. Is this just your opinion or what?

(March 19, 2014 at 10:04 am)discipulus Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 9:56 am)Aral Gamelon Wrote: So you're a cherry picker, got it.

I recognize the Bible is a compilation of various literary genres and keep this in mind when reading it. The same way you approach different types of genres when you read.

Serious questions....if you view the Bible as just a collection of stories that are open to interpretation, why do you follow it? I mean, do you think it's the best moral code out there, or something? Do you believe it was written by god, or by men? If by god, why would he write something that is so open to interpretation it has spawned numerous denominations? And if by men, what makes this work of men better than any others?

(March 19, 2014 at 10:10 am)Bittersmart Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 10:04 am)discipulus Wrote: I recognize the Bible is a compilation of various literary genres and keep this in mind when reading it. The same way you approach different types of genres when you read.

Serious questions....if you view the Bible as just a collection of stories that are open to interpretation, why do you follow it? I mean, do you think it's the best moral code out there, or something? Do you believe it was written by god, or by men? If by god, why would he write something that is so open to interpretation it has spawned numerous denominations? And if by men, what makes this work of men better than any others?

I do not think it is just a collection of stories. Sorry.

(March 19, 2014 at 10:12 am)discipulus Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 10:10 am)Bittersmart Wrote: Serious questions....if you view the Bible as just a collection of stories that are open to interpretation, why do you follow it? I mean, do you think it's the best moral code out there, or something? Do you believe it was written by god, or by men? If by god, why would he write something that is so open to interpretation it has spawned numerous denominations? And if by men, what makes this work of men better than any others?

I do not think it is just a collection of stories. Sorry.

What do you think it is?

For the record, I did provide valid arguments but the trouble with a person of faith, he/she places a higher value on a book of unsubstantiated fables, over substantiated theories.

It's like showing up to play tennis with said person, and he/she shows up with a basketball and doesn't understand why the game will be never take place.

If you wish to debate science, religion can't be your sole strategy.

And I'd kindly ask you discipulus to cease referencing my name if you are going to lie about things I've "not done."

It is duplicitous and unappreciated by me. :/

(March 19, 2014 at 10:04 am)discipulus Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 9:56 am)Aral Gamelon Wrote: So you're a cherry picker, got it.

I recognize the Bible is a compilation of various literary genres and keep this in mind when reading it. The same way you approach different types of genres when you read.

You also said science and the Bible don't mix. Is this just your opinion or what?

I understand what you're saying, but how do you go along deciding what's literal and what isn't? Is it an arbitrary process or what?

I stand by what I said in a fundamentalist sense, from a moderate sense you get to pick and choose what you believe therefore you get to say whatever the hell you want. Such as;

"You're interpreting that wrong, here's how I see it."

or,

"That's just a story, no one really accepts that as literal."

So that becomes a vicious cycle of science not agreeing with the bible's fantastical bullshit and you strutting around saying "that's not what it means, its a story, here is what it really means". Been there, done that sideshow.