If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist

[Mister Agenda]

Dude there are literally 8 million+ species of animal on the planet. But they're in baby form so they fit? What are you smoking?

what makes you think Noah had access to the same animals we have now? I just pointed out to someone else that all he need do is have access to some of the common ancestors and whole genui/genuses? could be accounted for.

I like that for that explanation to work, evolution has to occur many times faster than it acually does.

[Mister Agenda]

Here's an idea - try taking scientific knowledge at face value, and see where that takes your philosophy.  Assuming that an ancient writing is literally and factually correct, and bending your world-view to it, is unlikely to lead to truth.

will do... doing... doing... done.. All scientific knowledge taken at face value, Now what?

More like taken provisionally, barring evidence that requires it to be updated. The only advantage science has over knowledge from traditional sources is that it is constantly being tested against reality, and only what works is kept; which is why scientific knowledge only grows. Science is an endeavor, and we constantly discover new things. And when it's wrong, that is also discovered by means of scientific inquiry. Science isn't our only source of knowledge; but it's our most certain, a fact isn't a scientific fact unless it's verifiable.

So taking scientific knowledge provisionally as the most accurate knowlege about reality available to us; whatever else you believe should not contradict scientific knowledge. If it does and you're actually correct and science is wrong, it's a stopped clock is right twice a day (by coincidence) situation.

[Ahriman]

I prayed and prayed and prayed and PRAYED and got nothing. Maybe they weren't the right kind of prayers? But why would that matter?

[Ravenshire]

If you have to make believe to support make believe, what do you get?

"Science."

This one response encapsulates everything important about you and your arguments. You make it perfectly clear that you neither understand science, or consider it important, even though science has done more for humanity in the last 20 years than religion has done in the last 2000. All your arguments can be as simply dismissed as you dismiss the importance of science in the world.

You are an intentionally ignorant chuckle-fuck and your arguments will be given exactly the attention they deserve.

[Ravenshire]

Noah did not gather anything God delivered it to him.

That's what I just said.

Or the animals came and left eggs..

Another ad hoc detail to insert your ideas into the Biblical story. The Bible is easy to believe when you can just make up additions to the stories so they'll make sense, huh?

(my bold)

Fan-fic is a time honored tradition.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Two things I personally believe the ark story happened further back than what most people understand. far enough back that the animals on the ark may not be recognized today. Which means Noah did not need to have today's zoological catalog on board. but rather some of the ancestors to what we have today. so instead of opossums and Koalas maybe all Noah needed was whatever their common ancestor was.

How about this: the story is really about a very large local flood and a family that was able to save all the animals on their farm by getting them onto a coracle; and the story grew quite a bit before Hebrews wrote it down; based on the similar Babylonian tale tthat they learned during their captivity?

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-...les-n20441

Yeah, that one. The liars sitting around camel dung campfires in the desert weren't very imaginative. Reminds me of a bunch of shit-faced sailors telling stupid lies for their own self-aggrandizement.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Not to be a grammar nazi but this question it still doesn't apply. as Sherlock Holmes was never a fleshed out/real person. Currently and in the time of Christ human beings can not be created by anyone but God. Even if you were to clone someone you are not inventing a person. As it is not possible to creat or invent someone out of spare or newly forged parts.. If you wanted to ask when did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote "a study in scarlet ." or when did he first create The character of Sherlock Homes. This will get you the information you seek.

Like wise if you want to question the validity of the existence of Jesus then ask when was Jesus supposed to have been born. If you frame your question assuming the answer then you are setting up a logical fallacy ([i]circulus in demonstrando[/i]). If you are intentionally doing that, you are disqualifying us from any effort at a honest discussion.

You BELIEVE it doesn't apply. You BELIEVE that Jesus was once a fleshed out real person.  Sherlock Holmes was born in 1854, 'according to Doyle'. Fictional characters can be created by anyone. That you won't even entertain the idea that Jesus might be fictional seems to more disqualify you than me. I don't have a dog in that race, but you are so committed to yours that you apparently can't even acknowledge the possibility that yours might not be a winner, even for a hypothetical.

I’m uncomfortable all these implications that Holmes was a ‘fictional character’.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Koalas and wombats diverged from their common ancestor roughly 40 MYA. Are you suggesting that humans with boat building skills are older than that?

Boru

Forgive him, his ancestorS diverged  from wombats much less than 40 MYA.

That’s a rotten thing to say - dafuq did wombats ever do to you?

Boru

[R-Farmer]

All you're saying is Jesus knows there's a hell in the religion he invented, like Rowling knows Hogwarts exists in the world she invented. I don't disagree.

You do understand that I'm not saying Hogwarts or hell is real just because the author of both frame out their respective realms right? I'm pointing out If anyone were to be an expert on Hogwarts or hell it would be the authors.

Now to determine whether or not either place exists is real means we have to approach them canonically. This means we must first see what the author claims about them. Do they even claim either place is real?

Hell yes, Hogwarts no.

So for Hell we must then look at what Jesus said about hell, and approach testing what he said in a way consistent with what He is describing. Otherwise it would be like trying to prove AI is self aware with a yard stick. In that the measure or tool you want to use has nothing to do with the subject being evaluated. As this just leads to a confirmation bias.

If you think that not taking a story that's thousands of years old at face value as true, you don't understand the concept of 'poisoning the well'. If you think that I'm arguing that the story that's thousands of years old isn't true because it's thousands of years old, you're misunderstanding me entirely.

What I'm saying is test the story with in the frame work of the story and make a conclusion from an honest effort. Otherwise you are simply setting parameters, the story was never met to meet.

This is a perfect example of my above point. In that, what in Buddhist canon would lead you to believe that your thought/prayer experiment would work? is there any prescribed mechanism in buddhist cannon that would lend itself to support your earnest efforts? If not then why would you think this is a valid test? Which again is why I'm suggesting to approach a given religion canonically if you are going to seriously study it.

I didn't derive that from Buddhist canon, I derived it from human nature. We can believe anything if we try hard enough.

Which is my point.. Nothing in canon says your test, your way, will yield anything.
To be objective you must test with in the parameters given.

A different example is if I said I had a formula that turned lead into gold.  And shared the formula with you, but you being a man of science says it is impossible to turn lead into gold and to prove it you take some off the shelf scientific theory that has been proven wrong 1000 times. Then claim based on your effort here turning lead into gold is impossible.

Never once having tested the formula I came up with.

You had a belief and only confirmed what you already believed.

I'm not dismissing their potential psychological value, but there's no convincing evidence that the visions originate from anywhere but inside our own brains.

If the purpose of a successful vision quest is to gain access to knowledge not previously known, then how can you claim the vision was a product of our own brains? How can a brain produce knowledge that it does not correctly possess?

Apparently you think history is not a science, and that case law does not rely on verifiable evidence; that's not very impressive. If your theology is not actually true (does not conform to reality as best as we can determine it), I'm not actually interested.

History is not a falsifiable science. History is largely based on eye witness testimony and period documentation. As there isn't an experiment we can do to independently verify whether or not Columbus sailed in 1492. The evidence we have comes from eye witnesses and period documentation. So unless you are saying falsifiable science is now accepting eyewitness testimony as scientific proof, then history and science are two different intellectual disciplines with two different rule sets. Just like theology is an independent discipline who like history does not need to obey the rules of 'science' to be vetted/verified.

Meaning to hold a theological subject to the 'rigors' of science is perpetuating a confirmation bias. That is the whole reason for Karl Poppers efforts in establishing falsifiability as THE hallmark to genuine scientific study. If a subject is a non falsifiable subject it is not one that can be scrutinized or studied by pure science.

That's interesting. I think I meet (online or in real life) more Christians who say they weren't raised Christian than atheists who do.

No reason to lie.
My mother was the only one who went to church regularly and she generally she took us, but we (being mixed race children who did not speak the language fluently) were not allowed inside for services or Sunday school. So unless you count the parking lot and the play ground outside the church 'growing up Christian' we didn't.

[R-Farmer]

Not to be a grammar nazi but this question it still doesn't apply. as Sherlock Holmes was never a fleshed out/real person. Currently and in the time of Christ human beings can not be created by anyone but God. Even if you were to clone someone you are not inventing a person. As it is not possible to creat or invent someone out of spare or newly forged parts.. If you wanted to ask when did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote "a study in scarlet ." or when did he first create The character of Sherlock Homes. This will get you the information you seek.

Like wise if you want to question the validity of the existence of Jesus then ask when was Jesus supposed to have been born. If you frame your question assuming the answer then you are setting up a logical fallacy ([i]circulus in demonstrando[/i]). If you are intentionally doing that, you are disqualifying us from any effort at a honest discussion.

You BELIEVE it doesn't apply. You BELIEVE that Jesus was once a fleshed out real person.  Sherlock Holmes was born in 1854, 'according to Doyle'. Fictional characters can be created by anyone. That you won't even entertain the idea that Jesus might be fictional seems to more disqualify you than me. I don't have a dog in that race, but you are so committed to yours that you apparently can't even acknowledge the possibility that yours might not be a winner, even for a hypothetical.

ok cool.