BILL NYE VS KEN HAM: TONIGHT AT 7 PM

[DeistPaladin]

How do we know something ought to produce the results we want? How are you choosing what you want?

These are interesting, if abstract, philosophical questions. Why do we like pleasure over pain, health over sickness, life over death? Of course, they're red herrings to distract from the point that science works and faith doesn't. The reasoning is quite clear and, as far as I can see, not circular as you maintain:

1. Approach A yields results X
2. Approach B yields results Y
3. X is preferred over Y
4. Approach A gets us the results we like
5. Approach A is preferred

To reduce this to "it works because it works" is a distortion.

We know that is a later addition because it does not show up until later on so it does not affect the original text any.

This is a significant alteration of an extraordinary event which, if in fact recorded by a reliable eye-witness, should have gotten it right the first time. This is just one example.

Nice! I ask how you know your understanding of the evidence is not in error and you respond with, “evidence”. You truly are the king of circularity.

Again, you fail to understand what circularity is.

You can use some sources of evidence to prove other independent sources of evidence. It's kind of like how you might write a book and footnote another book. It's not "circularity" to use a book to prove the assertions of your book.

That’s funny; most people become pro-life because of the advancements in science (even the late Hitchens struggled with reconciling a pro-choice ideology with science and ethics). Is there an issue that you are actually consistent on?

Show me that "scientific evidence" and I'll certainly consider it.

I’d prefer to have believed the Universe had a beginning the whole time rather than changing back and forth.

Reality doesn't care about your preference. It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you can prove.

Depends on what you mean by right. I’d take the student who identifies his axioms and operates consistently within them over the first one who operates under the delusion (and ironically enough, axiom) that he does not have any axioms.

My point is that you are quick to slap the label "axiom" on a bare assertion to hide the fact that it's a bare assertion.

No. It’s a proposition that is regarded as true a priori and used to reason from. “The exterior world is knowable” is a great example of an axiom I am sure you possess.

Even if the exterior world is not knowable, such as the hypothesis that we are just brains in a vat and all our surroundings are just a programmed illusion, this world is still all we experience and all we can study. The unknowable world may exist but can't be studied in any way and so pursuit of that study would be fruitless.

By contrast, the bare assertion "the Bible is True" is not a valuable axiom because it neither helps us understand the world outside the Bible nor is it necessary because there is a world outside the Bible that can be studied.

To try to defend your bare assertions as "axioms" by saying "you have axioms too" is the Tu Quoque defense with a heavy does of false comparison.

It’s impossible to interpret any data without first possessing a conceptual scheme that is inherently axiomatic.

Again, you try to create the false comparison between basil assumptions in science with the sweeping bare assertions of Biblical truth.

The basis assumptions of science are essential for any study at all. We must begin with the assumption "reality is real and not just an illusion" or else there's no point in studying anything at all. The justification for the basis assumptions comes in the validation from gaining the desired results (see the first point above). If you wish to indulge in post modern solipsism, feel free from the comfort of your living room, but don't expect to find the cure for cancer by this means.

By contrast, to begin with your assumptions of the desired conclusion followed by the search for any supporting data will surely contaminate your research by the process of cherry picking, confirmation bias and other logical pitfalls.

Actually that one is not axiomatic; it’s supported by the fact that you cannot make sense of any of your axioms consistently with your espoused views of reality. The Christian on the other hand has no problem doing so.

I'm still fuzzy on where my "worldview" is problematic. I believe I have provided justifications on why I believe reality is real or the world is knowable as well as why I believe that science is preferable as an approach to knowing things than faith.

The Christian, or more specifically, the presuppositional justification for their assumptions usually are variations on the themes of "God-Verb-It". These three word flippant assertions are neither elucidating nor are they needed to justify anything.

Regulating something does not equal morally condoning something.

If does when you say, "if you do X then you're OK."

Why did you arbitrarily choose from Abraham to Solomon?

Because Abraham is considered the prophet that started Judaism and its branch faiths, Christianity and Islam. Hence "Abrahamic religions".

No it doesn’t. It says David did not turn aside from anything that Yahweh commanded of him save for the one instance. There are sins that are not part of the Ten Commandments. We know that David sinned when he numbered his people, but this sin did not explicitly violate any of God’s commandments to His people.

"Sin" is defined as acting contrary to the will of Yahweh. If David always did the will of Yahweh, he never sinned. Yahweh certainly never saw fit to tell what is arguably the biggest icon of the Jewish faith to knock off his polygamy.

He didn’t change His mind; polygamy was a sin from creation onward, that is why Jesus says, “In the Beginning…”.

The NT is after the OT.

One says "never" and the other says "except in the case of...". I think this qualifies as a contradiction.

Moreover, this is not even a contradiction, it’s merely an issue of elaboration.

Your social evaluation is not applicable. We're talking about rules here, not social perceptions. Here's a hypothetical example that relates to my point:

Q. "Is preaching allowed on atheism forums?"
A. "No, it's never allowed."
Q. "Is preaching allowed on atheism forums?"
A. "Only in the 'religions' sections." *

This is a contradiction analogous to the rules on divorce in Mark and Matthew respectively.

*Not really. Just a hypothetical (wrong) answer.

You did not answer my question so I will ask it again, why does the verse say wife and not wives? According to you the Israelites did not start practicing monogamy until later on, so this verse should say wives, why does it only say wife?

Probably because most Isrealites would only have one wife, despite the practice of polygamy. After all, there are only so many women to go around and in such societies, one only married as many women as you could financially support. Polygamy is for the rich and powerful, in such societies.

Polygamy led men to ruin in all of the cases I can think of, so yes.

Not with Abraham, David, Solomon, to think of three off the top of my head.
[/quote]