Evolution, the Bible, and the 3.5 Million Dollar Violin - my article

[libalchris]

I wouldn't describe God as "magical," but as supernatural. And if there are two similarities it doesn't make an identity.

What would you say is the difference between magical and supernatural?

[Jeffonthenet]

I honestly don't see how this became about burden of proof. The article is addressing a positive claim made by atheists that biblical contradictions with itself and with observable reality disprove the bible. I'm not sure but I think Jeff realizes that the article isn't intended to provide evidence for the existence of God.

I recognize that. It is a response to an objection based on supposed biblical irrationality. Though the objection seems to be close to the heart of modern atheism and I don't know if its demise will signify the demise of modern atheism as well.

I feel the article is making a false analogy. Dressing up in average clothes and playing in a metro station would be more like God spreading his message through average people (such as the bible was written) BUT you would still expect the message to be top-notch and without contradiction in the same way Bell played incredible music very well. This way of spreading the message would ensure people would accept God and his message for the sake of the message, rather than out of pure fear of God.

I think you have understood the article well and I appreciate your careful thoughts about it. However, I disagree that one ought to expect that the bible be without contradiction and that this is analogous to Joshua Bell not making mistakes. It seems to me that the wisdom of the bible is the beautiful music, and the beauty is without error. Say Bell hadn't practiced much in the last few days (professional classical musicians must practice significant amounts each day) and had made a few mistakes. Regardless, if he were to play a beautiful piece of music on that violin, people ought to stop. He can still play parts of the song with extraordinary beauty despite being able to play.

For your example to go through, you must be able to claim that we ought to expect the bible to be without contradiction. Yet I do not see how this is so as the bible itself suggests, long before evolutionary theory, that its message is intended to be "foolishness."

Take, for example, 1 Corinthians 1:17-25,

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength."

---

I wouldn't describe God as "magical," but as supernatural. And if there are two similarities it doesn't make an identity.

What would you say is the difference between magical and supernatural?

The former has a connotation of fairy tales which to attach to God would seem to presuppose God is a fairy tale and thus be a sort of circular argument.

---

If my mother told me that she was robbed by Italians dressed like Mario, I would believe her. That would be an extraordinary event. Now if you claim God is so extraordinary it is comparable to fairies, I would like to see some argument for that as it is certainly not self-evident to all people.

Sons place an inordinate amount of confidence in their mothers...don't we.


Look, it's already been established that you'd believe half baked stories, what did you hope to elaborate upon with that little tidbit about mommy? Compared to the pills you've already swallowed that would be small potatoes wouldn't it? Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed with your ability to so readily accept such a fanciful tale as a random mugging by hirsute mediterraneans dressed as video game characters.

My point is that if you trust someone you can trust them to tell you the truth even if the truth means believing an extraordinary event. I think in the event I suggested, I would be able to tell my mom wasn't on drugs or nuts if the incident occurred and suppose that perhaps some idiotic teenagers did it for kicks or else some criminals who thought it was funny did it.

[The Grand Nudger]

No one presupposed god to be a fairytale Jeff. Quite the opposite. God just so happened to be a fairy tale, ah well, live and learn. Trusting someone does not make any given extraordinary thing more likely Jeff. Whether or not someone ardently believes they are conveying accurate information does not make any extraordinary thing more likely. If drugs and nuts are the limits of why you might imagine that your mother spun such a yarn then the reasons that you feel that this sort of trust is compelling are becoming very clear to me. You've never actually dove into our thought process, our ability to decieve ourselves and others, or the unreliability of our senses and memories.

The kicker though, is that you are actually talking about faith, not trust. Im guessing you hope to pull the old equivocation rug at some point in the near future? You don't have a point, you have complaints about reality.

[Jeffonthenet]

No one presupposed god to be a fairytale Jeff. Quite the opposite. God just so happened to be a fairy tale, ah well, live and learn. Trusting someone does not make any given extraordinary thing more likely Jeff. Whether or not someone ardently believes they are conveying accurate information does not make any extraordinary thing more likely.

If you have their personal testimony of an extraordinary incident I think it would make the probability that this instance occurred more likely.

If drugs and nuts are the limits of why you might imagine that your mother spun such a yarn then the reasons that you feel that this sort of trust is compelling are becoming very clear to me. You've never actually dove into our thought process, our ability to decieve ourselves and others, or the unreliability of our senses and memories.

I am not sure what I haven't done. I have quoted people and responded. I have tried to discuss with reason alone.

The kicker though, is that you are actually talking about faith, not trust. Im guessing you hope to pull the old equivocation rug at some point in the near future? You don't have a point, you have complaints about reality.

I am not sure what I said that you are referring to here.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you have their personal testimony of an extraordinary incident I think it would make the probability that this instance occurred more likely.

No, it wouldn't.

---

As has already been explained to you, personal testimony -regardless of whose it may be, mine, yours, your mother's- does not increase the likelihood of any given event or incident actually occurring. Personal testimony has nothing to do with the probability of anything at all, beyond the likelihood of undeserved credit being given to personal testimony by other human beings -a testament to how much we value social interaction if ever there was one-. It doesn't matter who told you pink elephants went on parade.......no matter how strongly you trust this person, no matter how certain they are of what they saw. Your confidence in their honesty, and their conviction -even if both were absolutely justified- still does not satisfy as a measure for determining probability or likelihood, and ignores a great deal of what we do know about how completely and utterly we are able to delude ourselves. Personally, I doubt that you would actually trust anyone who fed you the story you offered as an example, even your mother. I'd be willing to wager some sideways glances would be exchanged. Sorry to sound cynical, but that's just my opinion. I have more confidence in your ability to think clearly than you would seem to suggest with that example. I don't say this as an isult to your mothers honesty, or your trust in dear old mom, and I hope you don't take it that way.....but it does seem that this particular example was brinksmanship with absurdity-and even so, teenagers dressed as video game characters is not exactly an extraordinary event -you took efforts to make it ordinary almost immediately. If you want to keep it extraordinary, it wouldn't be teenagers dressed-as...it would be Mario and Luigi themselves mugging your poor mother. I have to call massive bs on both the example, and your continued defense of it.

---

I am not sure what I haven't done. I have quoted people and responded. I have tried to discuss with reason alone.

No, you haven't.

[Carborundum]

What would you say is the difference between magical and supernatural?

The former has a connotation of fairy tales which to attach to God would seem to presuppose God is a fairy tale and thus be a sort of circular argument.

Why is it fair to presuppose that fairies are fairytales, but unfair to presuppose the same about gods?

[The Grand Nudger]

Who presupposed that fairy tales were fairy tales to begin with? For some strange reason I was under the impression that once upon a time....people considered fairy tales "historical documents".



For something to be a presupposition, one kind of has to presuppose it -just sayin.

[Jeffonthenet]

Hey everyone, I haven't been posting here recently because I am focusing on my formal debate in the philosophy section of this site. However, I think many of the things addressed here might be dealt with in a more in depth way there, so you are welcome to check it out.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Hey everyone, I haven't been posting here recently because I am focusing on my formal debate in the philosophy section of this site. However, I think many of the things addressed here might be dealt with in a more in depth way there, so you are welcome to check it out.

Thank you for the offer,but having read some of your posts, I'd rather eat my own scrotum.

[KnockEmOuttt]

I'd rather eat my own scrotum.

That's a rather terrible image, now that I've thought about it.